Yakima Bigfoot Round-Up Opens With Controversy
Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 15th, 2009
The above is an example of the photoshopping visual spoofs being created in the wake of all the Internet uproar about this weekend’s Bob Gimlin meeting.
Two-hundred-and-fifty invited friends, speakers, and attendees are flying into and driving to a Bigfoot get-together on May 15th-16th, 2009. It is the First Annual Yakima Bigfoot Round-Up, in Yakima, Washington. It first was billed as an invitation from Bob Gimlin, and later as being presented by Bob Gimlin’s friends.
Guest speakers, reportedly, will include John Bindernagel, Jeff Meldrum, John Green, Chris Murphy, Richard Noll, Kathy Strain and Bill Munns. Munns will be presenting his new analysis on the Patterson/Gimlin footage.
But in the days leading up to the event, it appears, according to online forum discussions, all is not calm on the conference front.
Apparently one or more people have been excluded from attending, and one person has been out and out banned from coming for what some people perceived as taking a skeptical stance on the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film.
Tom Yamarone, one of the main organizers for the Round-Up, issued a statement that had this effect, as characterized by the BFF: “a long-standing, reputable member of the Bigfoot community is barred from [the] public ‘conference.’”
[Tom Yamarone is a researcher from Pleasanton, California. Known as "Singing Tom," he writes and performs songs about bigfoot and bigfoot-related events. Yamarone is a member of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) and the Bigfoot Discovery Museum in Felton, California. He is a founding member of the Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers (AIBR) and currently serves on the Board of Directors.]
Another organizer of the event, Jim “Bobo” Fay justified this action by noting that the barred individual would have been physically assaulted for publically questioning the Patterson-Gimlin footage and having reservations about its authenticity, if he attended the event. Actually, what Fay wrote was: “I guarantee all of your internet banter and wit would result in a good ol’ fashioned ass whoopin’. We’re doing you a favor.”
[What the BFRO.com says...
About BFRO Investigator Jimbo Fay:
Jim "Bobo" Fay is well known and well liked BF investigator in the north coast redwoods region (from Sonoma thru Oregon Coast, inland to Bluff Creek and Marble Mts.). He supports his BF investigations through jobs like crab fishing and logging. He was one of the notorious roadies with the rock band Sublime. Before that he was at Humboldt State University where he majored in Political Science.
BFRO Expeditions that Bobo has attended: California 04 (Redwoods - Bald Hills), Washington (Oly Pen -1), New Mexico (Jicarilla Apache), Washington (Oly Pen -3), California 03/05 (Redwoods - Coastal), California 05/05 (Redwoods - Coastal), California 03/06 (Redwoods - Coastal)]
The person who has become the focus of all of the online Yakima melodrama is none other than Bigfoot eyewitness, CNN/CNET/G4 news stringer, documentary filmmaker (Squatching; Journey Toward Squatchdom), and comedian Scott Herriott.
(Apparently, all comedians from New Zealand have been excluded too. That’s a joke, for those rapidly losing their sense of humor.)
Scott Herriott, John Kirk and Chester Moore Jr. discuss Greg Long’s book. Rick Noll photograph, taken at the 2004 TBRC Conference. Cryptomundo archives.
Paul Vella, the head of the Bigfoot Forum has written, (with his words widely repeated online, and also quoted on the JREF site):
Let’s be honest about this, this isn’t Beckjord we are talking about, none of you for a second think that Scott would disrupt the event in any way, shape or form, so you have barred him simply because of his opinion – that’s a really ****** thing to do. Tell me Tom/Bobo, what did Bob Gimlin have to say about this decision you made on his behalf? What’s that? you didn’t tell him you say? Didn’t think so – I however do care about his reputation, and feel that the organisers are damaging it, and so I will be sending Gimlin a printout of this thread. I think he needs to know what the ‘friends of Bob Gimlin’ are doing on his behalf.
As a result of all of this, Paul Vella has resigned from the Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers (AIBR) board. Also Brian Brown, another cofounder of the BFF, has resigned from the AIBR.
[Paul Vella (b. October 31, 1968, Dublin, Rep. of Ireland) is an amateur cryptozoologist and a member of the Zoological Society of London, living in Northamptonshire, England. He was a founding member and served as the Vice-Chair and then Chair of the Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers until May 2009 when he resigned as a member.
Vella is a Forensic Examiner and Expert Witness by profession who specializes in the forensic recovery, examination and analysis of computer and mobile phone data, including the analysis of digital imagery, and has been involved in a number of high-profile cases.]
Clearly in the following media attempt to ridicule Bigfoot on CNN, Scott Herriott seems to make counter attacks supportive of the general pro-Bigfoot point-of-view.
The latest is that the clamps are allegedly coming down on leaks from what is happening at the “First Annual Yakima Bigfoot Round-Up.” Supposedly the mainstream news media are being excluded. People are being informed that “no photographs” will be allowed “without the written permission of the Bigfoot round-up.”
As an update from the road, one of the round-up organizers allegedly secondhand-communicated the “no reporting” and “no photographs” policy was mentioned in haste, and both will occur from the conference.
Stay tuned for what we do find out happened at the gathering. Or share what is occurring there yourself, if you are attending, in comments below.
Apparently a skeptical wag has even suggested a way for Scott Herriott to slip into the cookout honoring Bob Gimlin!
Thanks Loren, for keeping us apprised of the situation. We can’t tell the players without a program…and a basic understanding of Greek tragedy. No doubt the gods (Pan’s hairy relatives as well) are having some fun at the expense of humans and their vanities.
This is what it’s come down to? If some have a different idea or challenges an idea or belief, they are evil?
If this kind of steam were actually devoted to the search, think what might happen.
I guess that in a field like this one, you gotta have fun too. And I also guess that, given that this field is full of “skeptics” who are utterly clueless and whose arrogance combined with cluelessness can quite effortlessly get on people’s bad side, it might actually be good to discourage some people from coming – for their own sake.
Then you have to subtract the snickering scientists from the bennie to come up with your net.
[sigh] makes one hope for one superfluous sasquatch and a speeding truck. OK, maybe not, but you know.
What I’d really like is a copy of that Yakima Bigfoot Roundup poster that was featured at the beginning of the video — a nifty piece of work. Anyone know who, how etc.?
This gathering isn’t like the average open-to-all conference. It wasn’t advertised as such. It’s akin to a tribute dinner, where attendees are either invited by the organizers or approved by them, and where critics of the honoree would be out of place.
Yeepers—
In the words of Rodney King:
“Can’t we all just get along?”
I personally would have no problem inviting a person who was skeptical of Patty to the little shindig. But that’s just me.
I guess Roger Knights is right. They feel this is a tribute dinner where not everybody is invited. Still…It gives off a “bad impression” and further adds fuel to the “skeptical critics” when the organizers choose to pull something like this.
Even though I feel what Herriott did was highly unpleasant.
“Bobo” Fay’s mildly provocative statements certainly did not help.
Jeez, folks. we’re all trying to find the “truth”—we just have different ways and methods on how to reach that truth. Let’s not lose sight of the Big Picture, Ok???
The thing is, they’re not doing Herriott any favors here. He NEEDS to hear and see Gimlin, in person, giving his account of what happened to him and Roger Patterson. I think Herriott thinks that his cynicism about that footage somehow gives him credibility or objectivity or something.
And then Herriott has that goofy footage that he claims is of a bigfoot. What a joke!!
I was at an event some years back where a film of Bob Gimlin was being shown. Herriott was there too. As Gimlin, on film, began to go into detail about what happened, I noticed that Herriott got very fidgety before quickly and conveniently leaving the room. He seemed to be closing his ears, eyes and mind while he was thinking to himself, “I AM NOT HEARING THIS!! I AM NOT HEARING THIS!!”
A closed mind is a terrible thing….
I guess the organizers just got nervous about the possibility of him doing something like the Kiwi did at the Ohio confrence
Roger Knights, I wouldn’t call this a private event considering it was posted on a public forum by the organizer that they were accepting requests for tickets by email.
And Sergio you are mistaken. I’ve known Scott for years and he always has listened intently to Gimlin’s filmed interviews (and I witnessed him doing so at the Texas 2005 conference). Either he had to go somewhere or you misidentified somebody else.
The fact of the matter is that Scott has always been to these conferences and has always conducted himself in a friendly manner, he wouldn’t nor has any history of being disruptive.
Those advocating his exclusion are showing the disturbing new trend of hard core proponents of the film to adopt a prejudice against people who are skeptical of the film and view them as opponents in an imaginary war in which they envision themsleves the heroes.
And that is what this is, it’s prejudice. Scott isn’t being excluded for his personality, he is being excluded for his skeptical view of the film. Fay even confirmed this, saying Herriott chose the wrong side of history.
I tried to reason with the organizers about this in a rational manner, and in response I received a message that was full of F-bombs.
Well these organizers can keep their conference. Who really cares about pictures and a synopsis anyways? If you’ve seen pics from one conference you’ve seen them all. What happened? Well we’ll be sure to see repeats of whatever was presented for the next few years anyways if it really is so groundbreaking.
From what I understand, one other person was barred from going as well. Kristine Walls was also not allowed to attend because she got into some sort of argument with a researcher back in the Monsterquest all female “Skookum Meadows” expedition.
So let’s face it, this isn’t a legitimate science, and as long as these kinds of actions take place within it it never will be, it’s a fan club.
Just for the record, it was not by invitation only, for Tom Yarmarone told people to “forward this [announcement] to any friend or colleague…”.
The decision to exclude or “not welcome” specific people came later.
Late updates on the posting that follows the above now note the names of three people excluded from the event. Two have sent in statements. There apparently are others.
Hello everyone.
Posted by Wolfrax:
“From what I understand, one other person was barred from going as well. Kristine Walls was also not allowed to attend because she got into some sort of argument with a researcher back in the Monsterquest all female “Skookum Meadows” expedition.” end quote.
Friends, I have at the event, tell me via telephone moments ago, Kristine is in attendance at this very moment and having a wonderful time.
wolftrax wrote:
“…Sergio you are mistaken. I’ve known Scott for years and he always has listened intently to Gimlin’s filmed interviews (and I witnessed him doing so at the Texas 2005 conference). Either he had to go somewhere or you misidentified somebody else.”
wolftrax, I don’t give a rodent’s behind how long you’ve known Herriott, and I don’t care whether or not you believe me. I saw him do exactly as I described. And don’t tell me I’m mistaken. The dude clearly fidgeted nervously, looked for a few seconds, then got up and left the room.
Sergio writes, “And don’t tell me I’m mistaken. The dude clearly fidgeted nervously, looked for a few seconds, then got up and left the room.”
Clearly, I hope Sergio is not saying that someone would be barred from a future conference for this described behavior.
A danger certainly exist when any of us project our thoughts and feelings into the minds of folks without asking them what they are thinking.
Having been a speaker for 40 years now, I know from observing people leave my talks following demonstrations of similar behaviors and being told later by the departing parties what was up, the #1 reason is the individual was in dire need of using the restroom!
But, unlike Sergio, I don’t know why Herriott left a talk. And I sure as heck won’t place my fantasies on what he was thinking on a comment board as some kind of point in a disagreement with someone who knows and has talked to the guy about similar situations at conference presentations.
Loren, I don’t KNOW why he left. All I know is what I saw, and what my impression was: he seemed fidgety, and then quickly left, and did not return. The presentation continued for close to an hour.
And I never said that people should be barred at all. I actually said Herriott should be allowed to go, if for no other reason than to hear firsthand from Gimlin, in person, what happened. That is, as long as Herriott wouldn’t duck out of the room upon hearing things that are not congruent with his thinking.
Wolftrax wrote:
“”Those advocating his exclusion are showing the disturbing new trend of hard core proponents of the film to adopt a prejudice against people who are skeptical of the film and view them as opponents in an imaginary war in which they envision themsleves the heroes.”"
As opposed to the annoying new trend of hard core skeptics WITHIN the so called ‘bigfoot enthusiast community’ who are so concerned about being labeled as “gullible” or a “woo” that they seemingly go out of their way to over critique almost everything to do with the subject to the point where one wonders what on earth they are doing constantly hanging around the world of ‘bigfootry’ in the first place.
If the sole purpose of the event was to be a summit to discuss/debate the film & other pieces of evidence, then I think banning Scott Herriott would be wrong. But since one other purpose was to celebrate Bob Gimlin’s birthday, I think it would be a slap in the face to Mr. Gimlin to have someone there who is, in effect, questioning his credibility
Just to keep this fact-based, regarding this comment,
“one other purpose was to celebrate Bob Gimlin’s birthday,”
please note that Bob Gimlin’s date of birth is October 18, 1931.
The poster for the event mentions “Friends of Bob Gimlin Presents…”
and
“There will be a Tribute Dinner in honor of Bob Gimlin, John Green and the memory of Roger Patterson.”
John Green cancelled his appearance.
This is the first time I’ve heard “birthday celebration” mentioned.
Sergio, if you settle down for a moment and listen, you may understand. I was there in 2005 when Herriott was viewing a videoed interview of Bob Gimlin that went on for a long time and was very indepth. This interview has yet to be aired on television. Most likely this is the exact video you were watching.
Herriott could have had a variety of things happening, he could have had to have gone to the bathroom, he could have received an important phone call, he may have had to be somewhere and meet somebody. Where you are mistaken is that Herriott would try to shut out Gimlin and cover his ears and eyes, that is ridiculous.
Lightfoot, there are all kinds of justifications people come up with to support their prejudice.
I read somewhere that it was Bob Gimlin’s birthday. But maybe that info was wrong
I found and just read that Stan Courtney is “attending the ‘Yakima Bigfoot Round-up’ celebrating Bob’s 78th birthday.”
Okay, I just hadn’t heard that yet.
“”Lightfoot, there are all kinds of justifications people come up with to support their prejudice.”"
I thought the justifications thus presented so far are fair. It’s THEIR conference and Mr Herriot is well known to be a P/G footage doubter/skeptic. If the organizers of the particular said conference don’t want a known P/G footage skeptic there then it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Mr Herriot hasn’t just made one off the cuff remark regarding the P/G footage. I’ve been reading the Bigfoot Forums for many years and Herriot has a long history of critiquing the footage and declaring he thinks it’s likely a hoax. Should he be arrested for his views? Nope, and he isn’t. Should he be hung, drawn and quartered for his views? Nope and he isn’t. Should organizers of a conference celebrating the P/G footage and Bob Gimlin in particular be allowed to exclude him if they wish? Yes, by all means…….no matter how much protesting and crying takes place from Mr Herriot’s chums.
What I find interesting is that Mr Herriot has often said he thinks the footage is a fraud…….but doesn’t actually come out and say he thinks Bob Gimlin is a fraud. I find that lame and a complete oxymoron. If the footage is faked then Gimlin would HAVE to have been involved. There is no way around this. No way at all. The close up encounter, the footprints etc. If it was a hoax then Gimlin was in on it. It’s as simple as that.
So you’re saying Herriott thinks Gimlin hoaxed the film but won’t come out and say it, and the doubts he has had about the film are enough to exclude him from the event.
Have you ever had doubts about the film? Of course, any sane human has. Using that logic, not one person should have been allowed to attend the Round-up. Not you, not anybody.
“As opposed to the annoying new trend of hard core skeptics WITHIN the so called
‘bigfoot enthusiast community’ who are so concerned about being labeled as
“gullible” or a “woo” that they seemingly go out of their way to over critique
almost everything to do with the subject to the point where one wonders what on
earth they are doing constantly hanging around the world of ‘bigfootry’ in the
first place.”
Not sure I could have said it better, Lightfoot.
Personally, I have only one reason for paying any attention to threads like this: the idiocy that occasions them is obstructing a legitimate scientific investigation. So I do have a good reason for being here, even though I could care less than a fig about “Bigfoot personalities.”
If Herriott (again, I care not a fig who he is) has been running around for years claiming that P/G is a hoax, he is like everyone else who has ever done that: an out-and out fool. As is anyone who has ever attempted to forward any claim, in any debate, without evidence backing up his viewpoint. For a half-century now, we have not seen scrap one of evidence, of any kind, giving any sort of direct credence to the fairyland notion that every scrap of hairy hominoid evidence amounts to a false positive.
So, why aren’t scientists in the field, confirming? They read crap like this, chuckle, and return to legitimate research.
If you are indeed one of those idiots who clings to this field like a limpet, claiming that you just don’t care, that it’s a very very minor part of your life, and all this time not offering scrap one of any kind of evidence that you know a thing you are talking about…why, I think your IQ level alone, never mind your attitude, would exclude you from a function like this.
Says someone who cares not a fig, for anything but how stupid and funny scientists must think this is. As they resolutely try to make absolutely certain that nothing about this tainted topic can ever be laid to them.
THAT I care about. A lot.
One possibility everybody is, and has always, overlooked is that the film is a hoax and Patterson & Gimlin are as much victims of the hoax as the rest of us. I personally think the film is the real deal. I’m just pointing out another possibility
DWA and Lightfoot, you’re the one making claims and you need to back them up. Herriot’s OPINION leaned towards it being a hoax.
Herriott didn’t “go out of their way to over critique
almost everything to do with the subject to the point where one wonders what on earth they are doing constantly hanging around the world of ‘bigfootry’ in the
first place.”
People know why Herriott is here and appreciate him being in this field, which is why they are speaking up for him, both proponents and opponents to the film.
He hasn’t made unfoundecd claims without backing anything up, YOU are the ones that are making these claims and you need to back up these claims, unless you are just trying to spread propaganda.
Also, Scott Herriott isn’t why this field isn’t taken seriously by science, you’re now pulling stuff out of your hind end. Scientists don’t care about this kind of stuff. Like it or not, scientists have looked at this material and gave their conclusions on it, whether pro or con, and there it is, crying about it won’t change that.
jdoughty, that poster was done by Mike Rugg at the Bigfoot Discovery Museum. He has signed versions for sale. Here is a video about that piece of artwork.
Wolftrax wrote:
“”So you’re saying Herriott thinks Gimlin hoaxed the film but won’t come out and say it, and the doubts he has had about the film are enough to exclude him from the event.”"
I’m saying I believe that any sane person who has the opinion the film was likely hoaxed must surely suspect that Gimlin was involved.
“”Have you ever had doubts about the film? Of course, any sane human has.”"
I might have done at some point, but I honestly can’t recall it. I don’t have doubts about the film. I don’t sit on the fence. I see what I see. I’m 100% convinced it’s not a man in a suit. I compare it to other men in suits and I see a world of difference. As time goes on and EVERY attempt to debunk the footage fails and becomes ever more laughable this only strengthens my judgment about the footage.
I certainly haven’t spent considerable time on public message boards expressing my doubts about the film being authentic…………..unlike Mr Herriot.
“”Using that logic, not one person should have been allowed to attend the Round-up. Not you, not anybody.”"”
Why? There are plenty of people convinced the footage shows a real sasquatch and have no doubts about it at all. I’m sure there were plenty of people at the conference who have NOT gone on record to repeatedly critique the footage and declare they think it’s a likely hoax.
Spot the difference??
wvbig09 wrote:
“”One possibility everybody is, and has always, overlooked is that the film is a hoax and Patterson & Gimlin are as much victims of the hoax as the rest of us. I personally think the film is the real deal. I’m just pointing out another possibility”"
I think that can safely be dismissed.
Remember, the initial encounter was allegedly up close and both men supposedly had a good look at the subject. More importantly there were footprints all over the place allegedly left by the subject. Now, either the footprints were made by an extremely heavy unknown upright primate as Patterson and Gimlin claim………….or they were faked by other means either before or after the footage was taken…….and therefore both Patterson AND Gimlin must have been involved in faking the footprints.
There is no way faked footprints could have been placed there without either Patterson OR Gimlin knowing this.
This is why it doesn’t make sense to think the film was a hoax….but to then exclude Gimlin or Patterson (or both) from being the hoaxers. Gimlin was sat high up on his horse. How could he NOT notice large deep pre-made footprints and how could he NOT notice these pre-made footprints next to the scuff marks and tracks left by the suited actor trying to fool him???????? Gimlin was there for some time afterwards examining the ground and helping to take casts with Patterson.
There are really only two options.
1. The footage shows a real sasquatch.
2. Patterson and Gimlin were involved in a hoax.
I go with number 1 but if anyone goes with the hoax theory then there is no way that either Patterson or Gimlin can be excluded from the hoax. It’s easy to accuse a dead man. Not so easy to accuse one who is still alive and still seemingly sincere.
Lightfoot wrote:
“Why? There are plenty of people convinced the footage shows a real sasquatch and have no doubts about it at all. I’m sure there were plenty of people at the conference who have NOT gone on record to repeatedly critique the footage and declare they think it’s a likely hoax.
Spot the difference??”
I see, so it’s ok to have doubts as long as you don’t talk about it, but you also wrote this:
“What I find interesting is that Mr Herriot has often said he thinks the footage is a fraud…….but doesn’t actually come out and say he thinks Bob Gimlin is a fraud. I find that lame and a complete oxymoron. If the footage is faked then Gimlin would HAVE to have been involved. There is no way around this. No way at all. The close up encounter, the footprints etc. If it was a hoax then Gimlin was in on it. It’s as simple as that.”
Wait a minute… what you are saying here is it’s ok to have doubts about thefilm as long as you don’t talk about it, and then later you think not coming out and talking about it is lame and a complete oxymoron.
So which is it? Talk about it or not?
Wolftrax:
“He hasn’t made unfoundecd [sic] claims without backing anything up, YOU are the ones that are making these claims and you need to back up these claims, unless you are just trying to spread propaganda.”
This and everything else in your post is easily dismissable by anyone who values science.
If you think the sasquatch is real you must provide evidence. (Proponents have, tons of it.)
If you think that P/G, or any other piece of evidence, is a fake, YOU MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE. Period. (Skeptics haven’t, not a scrap.) Anyone who does anything else is not only committing borderline slander/libel but, ahem, pulling stuff out his hind end.
Period. Discussion over. You want to take this up with anyone, take it up with a scientist. If he agrees with you, bring him here and I will lecture HIM. ‘Cause he’s forgotten to be a scientist here.
P.S. The only scientists who have looked at the evidence either pronounce the sasquatch real or the evidence compelling. If you don’t know this, nice hind-end pull there! Why don’t people read up before coming here?
P.P.S. Matter of fact, it’s the only reason I waste my time on Sasquatch Celebrity Threads: to educate the uneducated. But I can only do so much.
Educating the uneducating? Boy, it’s getting thick.
DWA, stop dancing and show Herriott has made claims about the film without anything to back it up.
wolftrax: Nope, I just explained it. That’s not my job.
The evidence has already persuaded me that (a) there might be something here worth scientific followup and (b) that whatever-it-is might look like Patty. Because, you see, I’ve reviewed it.
If you think I am wrong, you have to show ME. And the skeptics have failed to do that. That’s all.
I could care less about Herriott, or about anyone else who has a skeptical attitude about this, unless they show me what qualifies them to make their attitude public.
I know what the proponents bring to the table. They bring a lot.
But I’m like Lightfoot when it comes to the skeptics. I can’t even call them that, really, because an unquestioning attitude is not skeptical. What, precisely, even interests them about this? Other than dragging legitimate topics for research through the mud?
Wolftrax wrote:
“”I see, so it’s ok to have doubts as long as you don’t talk about it,”"
Hold it there Wolftrax. You are missing the point completely. I don’t think it’s ok to talk REPEATEDLY about the footage likely being a hoax and then wonder why organizers don’t want you at a conference celebrating said footage. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?????
Let me give you an analogy. If I were repeatedly outspoken on a public message board against the likelihood of an eastern variety of sasquatch existing and professing I don’t think there is such a population and then the organizers of, say, a Georgia based conference decided they don’t want me at their conference because I have been outspoken against eastern sasquatch……………well then I really couldn’t blame them for excluding me and I would completely understand.
I don’t see why you have a problem with a known outspoken critic of the P/G footage being excluded from a P/G footage celebratory conference.
Wolftrax also wrote:
“”"Wait a minute… what you are saying here is it’s ok to have doubts about thefilm as long as you don’t talk about it, and then later you think not coming out and talking about it is lame and a complete oxymoron.
So which is it? Talk about it or not?”"”"
You haven’t read a single thing I have posted. I think it’s LAME and an OXYMORON to think the P/G footage is a hoax……………….and yet not have the guts to say you think the one remaining participant alive was involved in the hoax. If the film was hoaxed then Gimlin was in on it. There is no way around this.
THAT is what I consider lame and an oxymoron, Wolftrax.
I’m just going to ask some questions to get some clarification in this “discussion.”
Can anyone cite how Scott Herriott has been “a known outspoken critic of the P/G footage” other than raising questions on an insiders’ online forum four years ago? Have there been other incidences?
Was there a “personal grudge” list that included Herriott, Beelart, Byrne, and others? Was or was not M.K. Davis invited? Who decided on the attendees and the speakers?
Is this license to exclude anyone who is a proponent in favor of Bigfoot from any future skeptics’ conferences on Bigfoot?
I really don’t know the answers. I’m asking, openmindedly, for more information, and not slings and arrows, to see all sides of what happened.
Thank you.
Loren Coleman wrote:
“Can anyone cite how Scott Herriott has been “a known outspoken critic of the P/G footage” other than raising questions on an insiders’ online forum four years ago? Have there been other incidences?”
Well, for starters, just pick any one of several podcasts on The Bigfoot Show.
Judging from those podcasts, and the general narrative on the website itself, the dude seems almost obsessed with knocking the PG footage.
Loren, I leave the answers to your questions to others, because I prefaced everything I said about Herriott with “if.” I would presume others who have actually been in contact with the guy would know more than I. And some of them have said pretty negative stuff. To which I said: if he really has said that…and hey, if he hasn’t, I’ve done far less damage to him – that would be, none – than scoffticism has done to sasquatch research. No harm, no foul.
But I do have to say that, given the skeptical attitudes that prevail on this topic, and the way they’re presented – without evidence is the nicest thing I can say about them – I’d probably not extend an invite to anything honoring Bob Gimlin in any way to anyone who has made public any attitudes similar to those ascribed to Herriott here.
I can’t say it’s 100% certain that Patterson, Gimlin or both were or were not unknowingly hoaxed. Given how unlikely, NOT impossible, just unlikely, I consider a hoax to be, shoot, any explanation of a hoax, including Saucer People Hoaxing Us All, is as good as any other to me. (In fact, that is the MOST likely false-positive scenario, if you ask me; you wanna leave compelling looking evidence in loads of extremely unlikely places, can’t beat a saucer and warp speed!) But given how unlikely I consider a hoax to be, I would sure wonder why anyone would WANT to come to something like this all peachy and rosy about Gimlin if he holds a hoax likely. Because Gimlin not knowing is, on the totally subjective face of it, far less likely than Gimlin knowing, just because of all the additional stuff that would have had to be done to exclude him (and the extreme unlikelihood that it was – and then vanished, poof, forever without trace).
I like to check in on the Bigfoot scene every few years to see how far the science has progressed.
Wow.
Loren’s work on the Gimlin birthdate is unquestionably the greatest advance in the field in 10 years.
It also looks like most of the other participants are still turning in the same high-level of scholarly discourse that they always have.
Excelsior!
“”Can anyone cite how Scott Herriott has been “a known outspoken critic of the P/G footage” other than raising questions on an insiders’ online forum four years ago?”"
Loren,
This is the point I was making before. It wasn’t just a one off remark four years ago. Mr Herriot had a considerable history of letting his doubts about the authenticity of the P/G footage be known on Bigfoot Forums. Obviously the particular forum in question is a lot quieter these days and doesn’t have the traffic it used to have so I haven’t heard much from him in recent months. On the other hand I haven’t heard him change his previous stance either but as Sergio has already mentioned, I too have also heard his comments on radio shows regarding the P/G footage.
If you repeatedly let your thoughts and views be known publicaly, then you should be prepared for any comebacks, that’s all I’m saying.
I haven’t got anything against Mr Herriot. He seems an ok guy. I just can’t understand all this shock and horror from his friends at his exclusion from a P/G footage celabratory conference…………when his feelings on the P/G footage are WELL known. His friends’ determination to be outraged and affronted by his exclusion is over the top. Methinks they protest too much.
As I said before, there is a growing faction WITHIN the so called ‘bigfoot enthusiast community’ where those among it’s number have the thought process whereby they feel they have to be OVERLY skeptical and OVERLY critical about almost everything as they don’t want others on the ‘outside’ to label them gullible or a woo. Coincidentaly, this has become ever more frequent ever since JREF forums reared it’s ugly little brattish head.
DWA wrote:
“” Because Gimlin not knowing is, on the totally subjective face of it, far less likely than Gimlin knowing, just because of all the additional stuff that would have had to be done to exclude him (and the extreme unlikelihood that it was – and then vanished, poof, forever without trace).”"
DWA,
I don’t even consider Gimlin not knowing to be unlikely. I’m in the camp that Gimlin not knowing would be IMPOSSIBLE. I don’t think there is any way around the footprint/trackway conundrum, therefore Gimlin HAS to be involved if the footage shows a man in a suit. Nobody has ever explained to me how Bob Gimlin could be unaware of fake tracks being placed there either before or after the footage was shot. If it was a man in a suit then it’s pretty darn obvious that the man in the suit didn’t make those deep footprints. This means Gimlin would have seen the pre-made tracks (along with any additional marks/scuffs from the suited actor running alongside the faked tracks) or he would have been there when Patterson added the fake tracks later.
It’s a cop out to think the film is a hoax and then try to wriggle out of it by suggesting Gimlin might not be guilty. If somebody is prepared to say they think the film is a hoax then they should also be prepared to say they think Gimlin is a hoaxer. The two go hand in hand.
lancemoody, thanks for gracing us with your presence and your brilliant observations, thereby elevating the “scholarly discourse.”
It’s obvious that you are doing much to raise the subject to heights never before seen. It makes me almost believe that the glass house in which you live is unbreakable.
Please, don’t stop with your earth-moving profundities; they will certainly elevate the discussion.
Excelsior!
Lightfoot:
When no evidence has been found to back a position in over 41 years, the difference between unlikely and impossible is very, very slim.
I guess a fair statement of my position is: Gimlin is so unlikely to be involved that almost any other scenario is equally likely. Including my favorite: space aliens are trying to snooker all of us. Shoot, it’s as likely as a man in a suit, as anyone who knows anything substantial about this should grasp pretty quickly. There’s plenty of info. Read some of it.
As to the scared-to-be-woo: they really don’t know how ignorant they come off, if you ask me. (JREF is so intellectually bankrupt on the sasquatch question that I don’t even know where to start.) The evidence is copious; it jibes with what we know from P/G; it covers practically every kind of trace that an animal can leave (except for no carcasses or bones…that we know of); and it withstands statistical analysis and corresponds to biogeographical rules. And prominent scientists have noted these things; I’m not making them up.
If one is so scared to be thought wacky that one broadcasts ignorance of the evidence, well, it’s one wacky field we have here.
But you know? I think that the overly critical may be the most desperately hopeful. The only explanation I can come up with why they continually hang around this field is that they’re practicing extreme negative wishful thinking and desperately hoping they’re wrong. Patty jilted them, and they really really hope she’ll reconsider.
If anyone has another explanation I’d love to hear it. When you do no research; ignore the evidence; and do nothing but belittle and call names; and do it over and over and over…what IS that? DO something. Get outside. Try online dating. Learn something new. Get a job. PLEASE. Shoot, Dungeons and Dragons would be a step up. Bob Gimlin saw a sasquatch. If you’re jealous about that….why not try to see one yourself?
That may be what Ben Radford is out doing, right now!
Patrick Bede: your unseemly habit of taking words right out of my mouth has got to STOP.
Just from that post, could Lance not be one of the people Lightfoot and I are talking about? Shoot. What motivates them? Is this one of those things that only the Shadow knows?
You know, every time I think about Bob Gimlin I think he’s one of the luckiest guys in the world. Hope he thinks so, and wish Patterson were still here to enjoy it too. Which of course he may be. But that’s a different line of inquiry.
Sigh…
Just like UFO believers, it seems that many Bigfoot believers have resorted to the quantity argument—letting quality fall aside. I understand you boys are running a volume business now!
Let’s watch (again) what happens when any one testable claim is examined. Let me take just this one of your comments:
“it covers practically every kind of trace that an animal can leave”
I take it that skeleton is out here? And I suppose a body is right out?
What about confirmed proof that any other trace definitely comes from a Bigfoot to the exclusion of all else.
Like a hair sample? Or skin sample? Or feces?
Just point to one (your best one).
I did see some of the comedians mentioned in this drama on television (under the decidedly misleading title of Monster Hunters) working feverishly on a hair sample that turned out to be from a pig (as I recall). Is that the kind of evidence that moves your case forward?
But to a rational person I suggest that the biggest problem of all with the Bigfoot case is exactly the thing you most crow about: the sheer quantity of reports (and your brand of “evidence”).
Since Bigfoot are reported from one side of the continent to the other, a tremendous breeding population would HAVE to exist. We should be hitting Bigfoot with our SUV’s every day if they exist in the way they are portrayed by the learned researchers like Fay.
Each year is a damning drumbeat of failure. But keep telling yourself you are making progress despite all (real) evidence to the contrary.
“When no evidence has been found to back a position in over 41 years, the difference between unlikely and impossible is very, very slim.”
To then follow this statement with a defense of Bigfoot’s existence is…
Well, I think the irony will be lost on most readers but thanks for the hearty laugh!
lancemoody:
Reading has fixed more ignorant folks than you appear to be on this topic. OK, not, but AS ignorant.
Open minded people READ. You can write, sort of, so you can probably read what I have, and maybe understand it.
‘Til you do, you’re wasting my time.
Why do you waste YOURS, coming here? I need to know, and you need to tell me. People like you are a bigger mystery to me than ANY cryptid.
It’s fun watching you clowns rise to bait though. And clear proof of ignorance is regular fruit, to wit the following:
“What about confirmed proof that any other trace definitely comes from a Bigfoot to the exclusion of all else.
Like a hair sample?
Or skin sample?
Or feces?
Just point to one (your best one).”
OK, read this letter by letter if it would help.
IF WE HAD CONFIRMED PROOF, WOULD I BE TALKING TO YOU NOW???????????
(That was in English.)
Watch his answer, folks. I’ll be able to put more of it up here for target practice.
But I’ve had more than enough of that. Maybe he’ll just leave.
(WHY do they do this?)
I believe that the Patterson / Gimlin film is a hoax. (She said, dodging rotten fruit flying unbidden through the air : ). For many reasons, previously enumerated in lo, these blog posts.
Was Gimlin one of the dupers or a dupee? I don’t know. Will the hoax ever be proven to everyone’s satisfaction? Doubtful.
But it has inspired thousands of people all over the world to look into the woods and ask “Why not?”, and therefore it has earned its place in history and cryptozoology, and also in biology, archaeology, and paleontology, because of all the bright young minds who have entered into and contributed to those disciplines, in search of unknown animals.
So of all that trace evidence, you are too embarrassed to even mention one? It must be a truly solid body of evidence.
DWA, I didn’t ask the question because I didn’t know the answer. I know it only too well. You got nothing.
You do bring up a good point, I think. Why do skeptics like me continue to follow the field?
I started out as a believer (in other paranormal topics like UFO’s, too) but as I read and read (believe it or not!) I began to see that no real results were forthcoming. Every book cover promised (and they still promise) fantastic insights and new breakthroughs. But all those promises proved empty.
I am not exactly sure why I still follow things like Bigfoot. But I can tell you one big difference between me and a true believer:
I would be DELIGHTED to find out that I was wrong and that Bigfoot exists.
True Believers often use the most convoluted and duplicitous forms of argument to convince others (but mostly themselves, I suspect) that each exposed hoax, each dead end and each clump of pig hair is somehow evidence that confirms their belief.
And most of them go on and on–undoubtedly with nagging doubts if they have any intelligence at all (DWA excepted here, I am sure) that maybe, just maybe they are wasting their time and in some cases their lives on an empty premise.
And I find that fascinating.
kittenz said “I believe that the Patterson / Gimlin film is a hoax”
Can you list one of your reasons please? I’ve probably heard all reasons for the belief that it’s a hoax, but I’m willing to keep an open mind.
lancemoody said “So of all that trace evidence, you are too embarrassed to even mention one? It must be a truly solid body of evidence”
1) As of the last e-mail I got from Dr. Fahrenbach, he had 20 samples of hair he is quite confident are from Bigfoot
2) There are the dermal ridges found on some track casts. Dr. Sarmiento has stated that he could put convincing dermal ridges on casts. But to my knowledge, that’s all he has done. Stated he could do it, but has yet to demonstrate it. I don’t think stamping dermal ridge patterns of various known primates here & there on track casts would fool someone like Mr. Chilcutt for a minute
3) The 2006 analysis by three scientists, of the gait of the subject of the P/G film, that concluded the gait couldn’t be replicated by a person
4) Not all scat samples have been positively linked to known animals
1. Quite confident, huh? So that is the kind of science we are using. I suppose I stand corrected!
2. To say that you don’t think a particular person can be fooled is Bigfoot science laid bare.
3. And I have seen SEVERAL studies that say EXACTLY the opposite.
4. OK–not linked to known animals yet…
THEREFORE!!!!!! Bigfoot exists!
I have to say that this kind of stuff might work well over beers as you guys review the thousands of photos of raccoons and deer from your camera traps but in the real world it all seems a little sad.
kittenz wrote:
“”I believe that the Patterson / Gimlin film is a hoax. (She said, dodging rotten fruit flying unbidden through the air : ). For many reasons, previously enumerated in lo, these blog posts.
Was Gimlin one of the dupers or a dupee? I don’t know.”"”
Kittenz,
You see, this doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t add up. If you think the P/G footage was a hoax then you HAVE to accept that Bob Gimlin was in on it. There is no alternative. This wasn’t just a fleeting glimpse in the forest. Gimlin claims they came across the subject close up, the horses reacted and the subject was observed for some time and left many many tracks/footprints. If it was a hoax there is no way in this world that Gimlin was duped. It’s impossible. He would have to have been involved in the hoax himself.
wvbig09,
During the years that I’ve participated in discussions at this blog, I’ve mentioned at least a dozen reasons why I think P/G is a hoax, and I’m not going to drag them all out again here.
I think it’s a hoax. For many reasons. I don’t care to list them all here again; if you want to dig through Cryptomundo archives and read all the discussions that’s up to you. I think that Gimlin was probably in on it, but I can see how a reasonable person in his position could have been duped, so, yes, I think it’s possible that he was not in on it.
Whether bigfoot exist – well, there’s a lot of evidence that hasn’t been “explained away”, so maybe they do. If they do, sooner or later there will be proof.
Lancemoody: Well, at least you confirmed my suspicions.
————————————————————–
DWA, I didn’t ask the question because I didn’t know the answer. I know it only too well. You got nothing.
You do bring up a good point, I think. Why do skeptics like me continue to follow the field?
I started out as a believer (in other paranormal topics like UFO’s, too) but as I read and read (believe it or not!) I began to see that no real results were forthcoming. Every book cover promised (and they still promise) fantastic insights and new breakthroughs. But all those promises proved empty.
I am not exactly sure why I still follow things like Bigfoot. But I can tell you one big difference between me and a true believer:
I would be DELIGHTED to find out that I was wrong and that Bigfoot exists.”
——————————————————–
Quick English translation: Patty jilted you and you’re sour.
I think most folks who talk the way you do are Former Raging True Believers, who swallowed the concept without evidence and read all the dreck that clings to topics like this, rather than the review of the evidence by the (sadly too few) people who are qualified to assess it from a biological standpoint – every one of whom disagrees with you.
I consider the paranormal a very bad basis for entry into this topic, and the source of all the dreck that true believers, bitter former true believers, and bigfoot skeptics read. I have never harbored any interest in paranormal topics, and don’t think the paranormal belongs in cryptozoology. But that’s just me. I don’t even have a dog in the hunt; the cohesiveness of the evidence is the only thing that interests me. Sounds like an animal, one that behaves like the known great apes. Science should get off its duff.
I mean sheesh, man! Ben Radford at least does a tap dance that will give him plausible deniability when he’s proven wrong. But you? How did you GET so sure? I’ve never met somebody on this board so cocksure about this.
I’d love to see your face when you find out Patty ran off with the scientists, not the woo-woos. But ‘til then, I know what folks like you do with evidence. (First: you don’t recognize what is and what isn’t. Second: you haven’t even looked at it.)
And I don’t have that kind of patience.
Books do, though; and so does the Internet. Go there. Hints: BFRO.net; texasbigfoot.org. Another hint: volume business is the only kind of business science does. Frequency and coherence, it’s called. The evidence for the sasquatch qualifies, in spades. Little green men, this ain’t.
Ghosts, well, they might be real, man! (UFOs are real; they are – wait for it – Unidentified.) Go back to them.
They weren’t that close to it & I thought they went back a few days later and discovered & cast the tracks
Lancemoody:
I should add this – my cherry on top of the you-haven’t-looked-at-the-evidence sundae:
George Schaller and Jane Goodall – superstars of the natural sciences and maybe the world’s two best known names in zoology – think there’s a significant chance you may be wrong (Goodall is certain you are), not just on the sasquatch but the yeti as well. Add David Attenborough on the yeti. And there are others at least as qualified as these – several, in fact, more so – in relevant areas of study who agree with them. If you could list some names among those – of course I can – I could verify that you might at least know something. But of course you probably haven’t read anything of theirs.
See, I’m not voting with emotion here, as you clearly are. Mine is simply a cold calculating bet on evidence. It’s the only reason I’m here (and, I guess, my dog in this hunt, so there, I do have one). Evidence, and its proper treatment by those charged with that. I want to know; and I don’t want the unschooled continuing to insist the earth is round. (It isn’t, you know. More like a pear than a circle.)
wvbig09 wrote:
“”They weren’t that close to it & I thought they went back a few days later and discovered & cast the tracks”"
No. According to both Patterson and Gimlin they first encountered the subject as close as 30ft when they rounded the downfall tree pile. They more or less stumbled into the alleged sasquatch as it was crouched down by a stream. They were initially much closer to it than we see in the actual film footage.
They saw and cast the tracks THE SAME DAY. Bob Gimlin even mentioned a wet footprint on a rock at some point along the trail.
There is NO WAY Bob Gimlin could have been duped by all this. He HAS to have been in on it if it was a hoax. The very close sighting, the alleged reaction of the horses, the tracks/footprints which were found straight away etc etc.
By the way, it was Bob Titmus who later returned some days later to get more casts. Perhaps you are confusing the two Bobs??
Patterson and Gimlin for sure examined the tracks and cast them the SAME AFTERNOON they obtained the footage. That’s their claim anyway. They remarked on how deep the tracks were and that neither could make the same kind of impressions even when jumping.
Your assistance in keeping me on top of the news is greatly appreciated.
Remember the best concrete way to support this is to…
…here.
Thank you
Loren