|
The Imposters Were All Debunked
None of the various men who claimed they were the "man
in the costume" were able to build a vaguely similar
costume to support their claim. Some of these men tried and
failed to build an approximate replica, the rest never even
tried.
Professional skeptical debunkers have tried and failed. The
best funded and organized attempt (funded by the British Broadcasting
Corporation) to make a replica of the Patterson costume unwittingly
demonstrated some of the anatomical oddities involved.
Click here
to see the best attempt at a matching costume.
The BBC's well-funded failure to make a reasonable approximation
of this man-in-a-costume hoax, has become among the strongest
scientific proof that it is not man in a costume.
A "Confession" by Patterson's
Partner?
In the mid-1990's there was a deceptive British tabloid program
co-produced by the BBC (eventually shown on the Discovery
Channel in U.S. and Canada) called "X Creatures".
Many people saw this show and vaguely recall its assertion
that the Patterson footage was a hoax.
The narrator said there is an audio recording of the man who
accompanied Roger Patterson that day, Bob Gimlin.
Just before a commercial break, the narrator says the recording
of Gimlin is a startling admission regarding the authenticity
of the famous Patterson footage.
In the next segment the narrator explains that there is a
tape recorded interview with Gimlin from the 1970's, and the
interview contains Gimlin's "confession" that it
"could have been" a hoax.
Indeed, there was a recorded interview with Bob Gimlin made
years before. It was a long interview regarding the footage.
Bob was asked many questions about the events surrounding
the incident. One of the questions put to him was whether
it was possible (with a big emphasis on possible)
that it could have been a sophisticated hoax without him being
aware of it.
As you know, people begin their reply to questions like that
by acknowledgeing that, yes, it's possible ... As a
humble man, Gimlin did so also, and then explained why it
was very unlikely that it was hoax.
But X Creatures didn't play the whole interview for the audience.
They merely zeroed in on Gimlin's reply that it was possible
that it could have been a hoax..
So, in context, Gimlin's "confession" was the customary
acknowledgement that it was possible, because anything is
possible. Gimlin did not say he thought it might be a hoax.
A British tabloid producer took Gimlin's "possible"
out of context, and spun it as the partner's "confession"
about the footage, creating and propagating the impression
that Gimlin believes it was a hoax.
Many people in North America today will tell you they recall
a television program in the 1990's discussing the Patterson
footage, and the "confession" of the guy who was
there with him in Bluff Creek.
Gimlin still lives in Yakima, Washington. Ever since that
day in October of 1967, Gimlin has said the footage shows
a real animal.
Gimlin has no financial stake in the footage, and never earned
anything from it. It was Patterson's footage.
|
