Jump to content
Guest tallmonkey

If Bob Gimlin Professed The Pgf A Hoax

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Nothing nefarious about this topic. Just a sincere question... How much bearing does Bob Gimlin's endorsement actually have on the authenticity of the film? Does the PGF rest on Bob Gimlin's testimony or does it stand completely on its own merits? I think that's a legitimate question and someone had to ask it.

Totally agreed and thank you for asking it. I strongly believe as a community we need to ask ourselves these questions and get them out in frank open discussion. I see that so far the majority would want Gimlin to stand before us and run us through the "how we did it."

Have we created a situation where an 80+ year old man will not be able to have the heart to face us and explain "how we did it"?

Look at the adoration and gratitude and affection in the images I've posted. I don't think it is unexpected that we have done that. Patterson and Gimlin's film came out in 1967 decades before the advent of the Internet, well before the instant transmission and sharing of data by the general public. The things we needed then and would have used were it now to determine what was going on were almost completely denied to us and secreted away. Where those things are could only be found by equal parts luck and determination. I strongly place emphasis that we didn't get answers sooner because the people doing the primary investigations to often dealt with these men with kiddie gloves. They needed their film to be real. It was their 100 ft of vindication on Kodachrome II colour film.

What if that charming man we raised up so high can't talk to use because exactly of that raising up so high?

Well surely that's why Bill is taking the approach that he is? Because there's so much confusion amongst all the verbal and written evidence, who said what and when. The film just seems to the only evidence that's physical in any way

Anyway, I'm not sticking my neck out as a believer of the PGF, because I'm not. Having said that I can see why Bill has adopted the approach that he has.

I totally hear you and going through the film in exquisite detail is important, absolutely, but the film is not all that is available to us. Two thirds of the known source is as well. I will say it until I no longer have the breath to say it anymore. Contradictions do not prove a hoax. Confessions and suits do not fall out of the screen. To get these we have to go to the source.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

It's amazing that anyone would believe someone, if their truth, meant that they had been lying for about the same thing for over 4 decades. I.e., that would mean believing a very dedicated and determined lier but, the detractors would jump all over it anyway. I think Gimlin is telling the truth.

x,

What truth is he telling? I really think that if you examine his statements, he's doing a very Bill Clinton dance around the truth, and no one ever pins him down to the specific dates, places and persons. Instead, he uses theatrical devices like "look me in the eye... no one else was there that day," etc. WHICH DAY? Oct. 20? of course Bob H wasn't there on Oct. 20!! we all know that. He uses ambiguous words like "creature" and offers the opinions and statements of others, including Bill Munns, vouching for the film's authenticity.

To my knowledge, he has never specifically denied Bob Hieronimus' story. Now, apparently he is going to get back on the convention trail this year. I will bet you that someone is going to take my challenge and pin him down, and we shall see what he does.

p.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

"Creature" is ambiguous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

To my knowledge, he has never specifically denied Bob Hieronimus' story. Now, apparently he is going to get back on the convention trail this year.

I will bet you that someone is going to take my challenge and pin him down, and we shall see what he does.

p.

And then we'll know... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

To my knowledge, he has never specifically denied Bob Hieronimus' story. Now, apparently he is going to get back on the convention trail this year. I will bet you that someone is going to take my challenge and pin him down, and we shall see what he does.

p.

I posted this in another thread that went off topic so I'll ask it here:

Gimlin: "In my opinion, that creature was not a man in a suit."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

So what do you think Gimlin was proclaiming when he said this? That Bob Heironimus was not the man in the movie? Or that Bob H is actually a real Sasquatch?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Yep, I'd say that's Bob G. specifically denying BH's claim alright. In fact, he has specifically denied it, every time anyone asks, for the last 44+ years (about a million times). Maybe Bob G. just isn't the type to go around specifically calling people liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is an interesting excerpt from the 'Bob Gimlin interview' article, that roguefooter linked to...

GimlinStatements1A.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

If you want to discuss that- fine...

If not- take it somewhere else. I'm pretty sure I can speak for a good number of people who are tired of your ENDLESS bickering in every thread.....

ART

Sorry, Art, I just saw your post. I wasn't aware that I bicker endlessly in every thread. Point taken though, I'll try to keep it on topic if I post again.

My only point here is that I highly doubt BG will suddenly do a 180. If he did then, I don't know why anyone who never believed him before would believe him then and, vice-versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

What if he is too ashamed to face all those people and break their hearts? All those people who raised him up so high and made him so special - what if he simply can't deal with it and goes recluse? People most know that is a very real possibility. He may be in a situation where he has no choice but to confess, but all you'll get is a short lawyer statement and an apology and no more anything.

Who will want his autograph then? Who will want to dance with him?

Who will have conventions for him?

Who will shower him with adoration and thank him for changing their lives?

I ask this because it is a very real possibility and one I think as a community, we should think about.

It's a hard question, but this is all about what if Gimlin professed the PGF a hoax.

What if he won't explain because he can't face you and someone else has to do that?

If the Film is a hoax....it's ONLY a guy walking around in a suit. It would be the 'HOAX of the Century'....not the 'CRIME of the Century'...

C8ButtSepF308F309AG1Large1.gif

F382-F384AG3.gif

Kit-MKDavisAllegedWork1.gif

C8F310F311CalfFlexCompAG3.gif

F352F358F364F370Comp1.jpg

Here is something I wrote in my opening post...in the 'Roger C. Patterson' thread...

"I think the evidence is showing more strongly, as time goes on, that this Film is a legitimate film of a Sasquatch...and, if it is...it's the greatest piece of 'wildlife footage' ever shot.

And...in the sad event, that it isn't....it's still a great achievement...because nobody has come anywhere near producing a comparable film as realistic as this one....in 43 years, and counting.

So, in either case...."A job well done, Roger...my 'hat's off to you'!" :)

Alhough, I have to admit.....Phil Morris did come within 1 light-year, of replicating the 'wonder and magic', that is Patty... :lol:...

FlyingBob5.jpg

I don't think Bob Gimlin will ever confess.... F347F350AG07BB.gif

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

"He has a somewhat embittered attitude about the whole matter; he is angry at the insinuations that he either compromised his honesty to perpetrate a hoax, or indeed was the prime dupe of one. He has repeatedly said that "there is no question about what was out there..." describing the creature and explaining the incident over and over again in detail. In all his pronouncements, he has not changed his story. He believes he saw a Bigfoot that October 20th at Bluff Creek. I am only one among many who offered Gimlin large amounts of money to "tell the truth" about what "really" happened that day. His answer to me was, "I'm already telling the truth." His wife, Judy, told me that she suffered rather than gained, from the whole experience. She was working at a bank at the time; she became the butt of many jokes and found herself ridiculed by even her closest friends. She says she urged her husband to quit looking for Bigfoot, to withdraw him from the field. In a large way, Bob Gimlin has, existing now only on the perimeters of it, kept there by the fact of his presence that day in 1967 when Patterson shot the film and by the other Bigfoot hunters, all of whom use his name freely, calling him an associate even if he isn't." (Information Courtesy of Southeast Sasquatch Association)

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2006/01/biography-of-robert-gimlin_02.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest can

If Bob Gimlin confesses we should accept his word just as you accepted it all along? Or rather investigate the claims and base the conclusions on the evidence? It seems to me many of the people involed have changed stories or have unverifiable claims. Including both Bobs. Personally I'd rather not take anyones word when it comes to this movie and its creation. I think many have decided to jump through whatever hoops are necessary to make this real when the obvious stares us all in the face. Opinions may differ.

Edited by can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest can

I also think it is very telling as far as motives, how many are willing to accept his word on anything. Anything but this.

Edited by can
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
If the Film is a hoax....it's ONLY a guy walking around in a suit. It would be the 'HOAX of the Century'....not the 'CRIME of the Century'...

And...in the sad event, that it isn't....it's still a great achievement...because nobody has come anywhere near producing a comparable film as realistic as this one....in 43 years, and counting.

So, in either case...."A job well done, Roger...my 'hat's off to you'!" :)

I agree with you, Sweaty, on three of your points.

I agree with you that as a hoax the PGF is not a crime. I think Frank Hansen's Minnesota Iceman hoax was not a crime either. However, would you consider any part of the Georgia Boys hoax a crime, or just two idiots with a suit and butcher shop bits in a freezer?

I also agree that either way, the creators of the PGF (the four of them, for me, the two of them for you) accomplished something significant and hats off to them.

Finally, I agree with you that the PGF would be a sad event for many people. Very sad, in fact. I often struggle with that in my own work with the film. I used to be a Bigfoot and PGF believer, so I know it sucked for me when I found out it was a fake. I got over it, however, and I'd like to think others will too.

I ask you this, though, as we both agree hats off the the people who made the film, can you speak for these people as to their reaction to have Bob Gimlin explain to them that all this time he has been hiding the truth from them. Can you expect them not to feel betrayed, hurt, confused, and angry?...

grouppic.jpg

More importnatly, can Gimlin count on the adoration and the raising him up to "American hero" status to be strong enough to endure him admitting a hoax and for him to feel confident enough to face all the people that have been so supportive and attentive to him?

Do you think Gimlin will want to face those people to give them a detailed play-by-play on how the film was made and why he deceived them for so long? Or do you think it more likely he would issue a short apology statment through his lawyer and never speak publicly again? In the PGF being a hoax, it is far easier and happier for everybody for Gimlin to maintain the film is not a hoax. He need only say what he is expected to say, and he can always rely on Bigfootery to handle him with kiddie gloves. He just needs to continue saying, "It was only Roger and I there that day, as far as I'm concerned," keep leaving out that his horse was Heironimus' when doing the conventions, say "the whole family just kind of prevaricates" when addressing why Heironimus' family supports his claim and themselves claim to have seen the suit, and say "we aren't friends anymore" when asked about his friendship with Heironimus without ever fear of being asked why they were such good friends and how Gimlin could have trusted Heironimus so much if it was common knowledge they were involved in a Bigfoot film hoax even amongst the employees of where they both worked together.

Can Gimlin expect a placid and content audience when he runs them through how he duped them and betrayed their trust for years? Or can he expect the same kind of hate and poison PGF believers routinely show to his former friend and confidant Bob Heironimus? Can he expect that hostility or possibly even more from disgruntled and disillusioned PGF former believers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

More importantly, can Gimlin count on the adoration and the raising him up to "American hero" status to be strong enough to endure him admitting a hoax and for him to feel confident enough to face all the people that have been so supportive and attentive to him?

The 'status' of Bob Gimlin is no higher than that of the Film Subject. It's Patty's unique/impressive/realistic 'status' that has given Bob Gimlin and Roger Pattterson their status, and their 'adoration'.

So, again....since it's the "suit" that's the driving force behind all of this...there isn't any good reason to villify Patterson and Gimlin...for "fooling people"...(if that turns out to be the case).

My thinking on the matter is pretty simple...if you can create a suit this realistic....and film it, in motion, under the conditions Patty is seen in.....and it takes 44+ years for someone to prove it's a suit....then....my "hat's off to ya'"!! ;):)

I would be fascinated to see how this was accomplished...with thick, custom-formed padding...

C8F310F311CalfFlexCompAG3.gif

kitakaze wrote:

However, would you consider any part of the Georgia Boys hoax a crime, or just two idiots with a suit and butcher shop bits in a freezer?

Well, they didn't get too far, with their suit...did they? I consider their hoax to be more 'mind-boggling'... :wacko: ...than anything else.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

The 'status' of Bob Gimlin is no higher than that of the Film Subject. It's Patty's unique/impressive/realistic 'status' that has given Bob Gimlin and Roger Pattterson their status, and their 'adoration'.

The truth is generally derived from fairly clear, simple statements such as this. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...