Originally Posted by robloc
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.
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.
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.
