Jump to content
Guest parnassus

Why Did Patterson And Gimlin Abruptly Pull Out Of Bluff Creek On Oct. 21?

Recommended Posts

roguefooter

I really do hope you and the parn and the Alaskian dude over there can assemble these explanations of the hoax into one epic masterpiece and publish it, because it'll really be fascinating to see how amazingly complex and well thought out this "hoax" was. The scriptwriters from the old Mission Impossible TV series will be humbled by the complexity and subtle tricks and actions taken in anticipation of reactions you describe, the planning, the masterful way things were done then to mislead, etc.

With George Clooney and Brad Pitt taking on Patterson and Gimlin's roles, we could have another Ocean's-style blockbuster on our hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Parn, you only believe the amount of rain was not an obstacle,I think there has certainly been more than enough evidence presented that the rain indeed was a significant obstacle, the nature of the vehicles, pulling trailers,etc has been brought up here, and is more than valid. It does not take much rain to turn a logging road into a problem,not much at all. Even believing more rain was coming was an obstacle.You cannot present the rain as dismissive or trivial, because it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

The question I ask is, since the amount of rain would not seem, on the evidence so far presented, at least, to have been more than a possible temporary mild obstacle, why did he blow off the inspection in favor of a course that might cast doubt on the timelime?

In order to have an inspection you have to have inspectors. It's kind of pointless when none of the scientists are interested in showing up.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good point roguefooter, and even then,he tried to cover and preserve the tracks. Silly hoaxer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Right! Obviously, anyone interested would want to see the film before deciding whether or not to traipse down to Bluff Creek and sop around looking for additional evidence. I don't blame them. I'm sure that Roger and Bob G were anxious to see the film too so; it doesn't surprise me at all that they decided not to stick around. As usual, the proposed and tangled web of deceit never falls into place.

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Patterson constructs realities he wants you to see for the dramatic effect. No? Don't think so? Ask impostor Gimlin about that.

This is standard protocol in the entire entertainment industry- from documentaries, TV shows, movies, music bands, etc. When the real people get sick or aren't available you get a stand-in. The show goes on and the people never know the difference.

Look at the guy in the middle holding the guitar- his name is Vince Calandra. He's wearing a wig and filling in for George Harrison on the Ed Sullivan show:

rbksqh.jpg

Here's a different fake George:

11hz0id.jpg

Harrison would get sick so they got a stand-in. Does that make them conniving and malicious? Or was it standard practice in those days?

Gimlin may not haved liked being replaced, but he bailed out on the show they had set up. It's easier to get a stand-in rather than cancel or change everything.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Standard industry protocol? The level of disgenuine apologism there is really quite something. First of all, Rogue, Vince Calandra was the Talent Coordinator for the Ed Sullivan show when the Beatles played on Feb. 8th, 1964. Calandra is not impersonating Harrison to an unknowing crowd, Rogue. That was an on-camera dress rehearsal. Harrsion was sick at the hotel and road manager Neil Aspinall was standing in for the rehearsal. Harrison's sister Louise came to the hotel to visit George and was not allowed in when she said she was his sister. Neil was called over to get her through security, so Calandra was suggested by show producer Bob Precht to stand in for the rehearsal because of what he was wearing and his size. Ed Sullivan as a joke had Calandra wear the wig, which all the crowd thought was hilarious. Nobody was being fooled, Rogue, so that is just the most nonsense attempt to excuse Patterson's impostor. The Beatles, all four, were stars, and if you put up a fake member, the rabid fans would let you know about it immediately. The fact is that Gimlin's impostor did get busted by a friend of Gimlin's at a showing in Arkansas. He called the impostor a "**** liar" and was removed from the premises.

Here are Gimlin's own words on the impostor and what he thought of it...

In Gimlin's own words during his MNBRT interview, he says that a friend named Jim living in Arkansas contacted him after attending a film showing of the PGF in which the impostor introduces himself as Bob Gimlin. Jim was said to then get up and say, "Hey! You're a **** liar!" and then get thrown out by security. Do not take my word for it (from 43:15)...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mnbrt/2010/02/13/mnbrt-radio-with-bob-gimlin

Gimlin's impersonator was not a joke for a knowing audience. The impostor was a sham playing a character that Gimlin played and was not. Gimlin's character was a cartoon creation by Patterson to fit the reality he wanted people to see. As you well know, Patterson and "Gimlin" were on stage and answered questions about the film, much like Matrt Whitton and Rick Dyer did when meeting the press and answering their questions. Patterson would have had to school his impostor on how to deceive the crowd into thinking the stooge was in fact Gimlin...

...Patterson would have had to inform this guy about the details of the encounter and his relationship with the real Gimlin, in case anyone in the audience had questions. It could have been quite interesting to watch a stand-in deal with the situation:

Audience Member: "Bob, you are an Indian tracker. Are you full blooded, or part Indian?"

Fake Bob Gimlin: "I've got some Indian in me."

AM: "Was your father or mother Indian, and who taught you your tracking skills?"

FBG: "Hi, I'm Bob Gimlin."

AM: "What kind of rifle did you have with you when you encountered the Bigfoot?"

FBG: "It was a shooting rifle."

AM: "How many rounds did you typically load into this rifle?"

FBG: "I had the bullets in it. A couple or few, but not many. The extra bullets were kept outside of the rifle."

AM: "Where did you keep these extra rounds?"

FBG: "They were there at Bluff Creek, just like I was. The Bigfoot was there too, and we startled it around the bend in the creek. Science and many people do not think this animal exists, but Roger and I were there to get it on film. It was pretty tense if I say so myself."

AM: "Are you planning to go back there with Roger to try to get some physical evidence of the existence of this animal?"

FBG: "Yes. We are planning to go back there if we decide to go back there."

AM: "Bob, can you afford to take all of this time away from your work and family?"

FBG: "Hi, I'm Bob Gimlin. I was with Roger Patterson when he filmed the Bigfoot. My hair is long because I'm an Apache Indian. Bigfoot is real."

Patterson was presenting to people a film he used to make people believe in Bigfoot. To do that he used fake characters created by him. Was that honest or was Gimlin right in being choked by that?

And if Gimlin bailed from his duties in promoting the film for 1/3 of the film rights, do you think he still should have been entitled to those rights when he stopped doing what he was supposed to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Standard industry protocol? The level of disgenuine apologism there is really quite something. First of all, Rogue, Vince Calandra was the Talent Coordinator for the Ed Sullivan show when the Beatles played on Feb. 8th, 1964. Calandra is not impersonating Harrison to an unknowing crowd, Rogue. That was an on-camera dress rehearsal. Harrsion was sick at the hotel and road manager Neil Aspinall was standing in for the rehearsal. Harrison's sister Louise came to the hotel to visit George and was not allowed in when she said she was his sister. Neil was called over to get her through security, so Calandra was suggested by show producer Bob Precht to stand in for the rehearsal because of what he was wearing and his size. Ed Sullivan as a joke had Calandra wear the wig, which all the crowd thought was hilarious.

Harrison wasn't expected to make the live taping for TV - that's why they had the stand-in at rehearsals. They were going to go on TV with a stand-in, it's a well known fact. At the last minute George decided he could do it, otherwise they would have went on TV with a fake Harrison. There is no apologism there- those are the facts. A lot of bands have done this- not just the Beatles.

Nobody was being fooled, Rogue, so that is just the most nonsense attempt to excuse Patterson's impostor. The Beatles, all four, were stars, and if you put up a fake member, the rabid fans would let you know about it immediately.

They were NOT well known stars in the US prior to Ed Sullivan. Those "rabid fans" you saw at the airport when they got off the plane was a set up publicity stunt by the record company.

Yes, what Patterson did was nothing new and a standard in the entertainment industry- from replacing people on stage to a lookalike pretending to be Bruce Lee in the movies. Call it nonsense or whatever you want- it doesn't erase the fact that what DeAtley and Patterson did was typical show biz and not some plot devised by a horrible person. They were presenting a show that people paid to see and hired a stand-in because Gimlin wasn't there to do it.

Patterson was presenting to people a film he used to make people believe in Bigfoot. To do that he used fake characters created by him. Was that honest or was Gimlin right in being choked by that?

Just about every documentary and movie based on a real event has embellished the real story behind it to make it more interesting for the viewer. Is that honest? Not by my moral code, but I know that's standard practice in the entertainment industry and they do it for a reason.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Harrison wasn't expected to make the live taping for TV - that's why they had the stand-in at rehearsals. They were going to go on TV with a stand-in, it's a well known fact. At the last minute George decided he could do it, otherwise they would have went on TV with a fake Harrison. There is no apologism there- those are the facts. A lot of bands have done this- not just the Beatles.

Gobbledy-goop. Vince Calandra was not a guitarist and could not replace lead guitarist Harrison. It was for the dress rehearsal, it was a joke to a knowing crowd, and Calandra did not have to be schooled in how to deceive people into thinking he was George Harrison...

Everything was set. Fast forward to February and the Beatles are in the house on Feb. 8, 1964, rehearsing for their first appearance. The Fab Four were, at that moment, the Fab Three. John Lennon, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr were playing without George Harrison, who was back at the hotel ill.

"Neil Aspinall was standing in for (George Harrison) at the rehearsal. And they were actually singing and trying to get levels on the guitars and the voices," Calandra says. "And they had a crisis. Louise Harrison, George’s sister, was at the hotel trying to get through security. And she went to the guards and said, 'Hi, I’m George Harrison’s sister.' And the the New York cops said to her, 'Yeah, lady, and so are the other 5,000 kids out there screaming.' And so they called the studio and they said, “Neil, get back to the Plaza and get George’s sister through security."

Because it was a Saturday, he says, most of the Sullivan staff was dressed casually. "We usually didn’t have to wear jackets and shirts and ties on a Saturday, but I was going to the theater that night and I had a dark blazer and a light blue shirt on and no tie. And they were wearing dark jackets. And Bob Precht said, ‘Well, Vince is about George’s size. Vince could go out and stand-in.' "

Sullivan was laughing

"I actually went out and Mal Evans also gave me his guitar to hold. And everyone was, like, hysterical," he says. "And then Sullivan comes over ... and he starts laughing. And he said this doesn’t look right. And I think it was either he or Eddie Brinkman came over and put one of those ridiculous, you know, Beatle wigs on my head. ...So I was up there like a good half hour."

Vince Calandra in 2003 (Courtesy Archive of American

TelevisionCalandra says he was a familiar face from the Sullivan staff to the Beatles. "I was like the liason between the Sullivan show and Brian Epstein and Mal Evans and Neil Aspinall for their calls," he says. "Anytime they needed anything, I was the go-to guy because I was the production guy. So I got to know them fairly well. Mal, especially, and Neil. But I stood up there and they actually sang the songs." What songs? "All the stuff they were doing on the weekend. Everything that appeared on the show."

http://www.examiner.com/beatles-in-national/john-paul-vince-and-ringo-a-special-ed-sullivan-moment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rNROhtcxxY

"I knew he was gonna be there anyway, even if they had to prop him up, but he must have really been sick not to make it to the rehearsal." - Vince Calandra (3:30)

Go to the 7:00 mark, Rogue. Calandra did not know how to play the guitar or even hold the guitar. He had no idea what he was doing and he was never expected, ever, to go on and impersonate the lead guitarist of The Beatles.

Nonsense!

10:25 - February 9th, George is back for rehearsals. Calandra was never going on, he was never expected to, your last five minutes anecdote is fantasy.

Also, the pandemonium that Calandra discusses around the studio and not being able to get in and the police on horses holding the people back was not a publicity stunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Gobbledy-goop. Vince Calandra was not a guitarist and could not replace lead guitarist Harrison. It was for the dress rehearsal, it was a joke to a knowing crowd, and Calandra did not have to be schooled in how to deceive people into thinking he was George Harrison...

10:25 - February 9th, George is back for rehearsals. Calandra was never going on, he was never expected to, your last five minutes anecdote is fantasy.

Also, the pandemonium that Calandra discusses around the studio and not being able to get in and the police on horses holding the people back was not a publicity stunt.

Last five minutes? Now you're exaggerating what I meant. Harrison had doctors orders not to perform so they did not know if he was going to make it. The publicity stunt by Capitol Records at JFK airport helped to kick off the pandemonium in New York City- they were not household names or highly recognized across the US yet. That's what doing the Ed Sullivan show was intended for.

Just a few months later they used a stand in for Ringo for 8 shows because he also fell ill. Imagine that.

Anyways I'm not sure why you're pushing the example that much more than the topic, but to act like the use of stand-ins in the entertainment industry wasn't common is just rediculous. What Patterson and DeAtley did was nothing new or uncommon for the entertainment industry. I know you're trying to push it as a malicious act by an evil mind, but unfortunately that wasn't the case.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

1) Was Vince Calandra ever intended to impersonate George Harrison and had George Harrison been to ill to perform on the actual recording date of February 9th, (not the 8th when Calandra was asked by producer Bob Precht to stand in for the taped rehearsal because he had the right clothes and size as Harrison and could not play a lick of guitar, let alone properly hold one)?

2) Had Harrison not been able to perform that Sunday (they performed Sullivan's show three consecutive Sundays in Feb '64, 9th, 16th, 23rd), could Calandra have even possibly impersonated lead guitarist Harrison on the Sullivan stage and played the music to even one Beatles song?

3) "I Want to Hold Your Hand" hit the American Billboard Hot 100 chart at on January 18, 1964 at #45. What was it's chart position on February 1, 1964 and throughout the time The Beatles were doing the performances at the Sullivan show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

1) Was Vince Calandra ever intended to impersonate George Harrison and had George Harrison been to ill to perform on the actual recording date of February 9th, (not the 8th when Calandra was asked by producer Bob Precht to stand in for the taped rehearsal because he had the right clothes and size as Harrison and could not play a lick of guitar, let alone properly hold one)?

2) Had Harrison not been able to perform that Sunday (they performed Sullivan's show three consecutive Sundays in Feb '64, 9th, 16th, 23rd), could Calandra have even possibly impersonated lead guitarist Harrison on the Sullivan stage and played the music to even one Beatles song?

3) "I Want to Hold Your Hand" hit the American Billboard Hot 100 chart at on January 18, 1964 at #45. What was it's chart position on February 1, 1964 and throughout the time The Beatles were doing the performances at the Sullivan show?

I'll tell you what, if you want to continue the discussion on the Beatles then take it to PM, okay? You're getting a little obsessed over it.

It was a single example - not the pinnacle of the entire entertainment industry. What Patterson and DeAtley did was common practice- look up the term "fake Shemp" if you need another example.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It is not so easily proved a fake by looking at the film so the focus goes to the characters involved. And this is where the hearsay and assumptions come in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Yeah, why would you want to investigate the source rather than sticking to the film? The history of Bigfootery has nothing to teach us in that regard... :wacko:

yeti_snow_walker_video_still.jpg

jefflab1-300x218.jpg

Dr. Jeffery Meldrum: "I am quite confident in my estimate of scale, which was derived from the witnesses' snowshoe trackway. Using that trackway as a scale, the subject had to be in excess of 9 feet tall. When you are confident of the size in excess of 9 feet, you have to ask, 'where did they find an actor to fill that costume?'"

Bayanov.jpg

Dmitri Bayanov: "The footage is very impressive, very, very impressive because the creature that it shows has all the characteristic features of a relic hominoid- such as the cone shaped head, hairy body, very massive limbs and trunk and torso."

Burtsev_cast.jpg

Igor Bourstev: "It's not possible, it's not a man."

Leading Bigfoot proponent scientists said Snow Walker can't be human. Why?

Should we get an award in Bigfootery for being the fortean fringe culture with not only the scantest evidence, but also the serial inability to learn anything from our own mistakes? No, really, why don't we learn?

*Picks up steaming kettle, oops I got burned. Picks up kettle again, oops I got burned. Picks up kettle again, oops I got burned.* Ad nauseum.

It's as if being duped is something gravitated towards and found to be enjoyable.

436938_main.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kit-I think your comparison is weak. It did not take 40+years to unequivocally solve any of these other films/videos. Also investigating the source is no longer possible..RP is dead. Other sources,outside of Gimlin, imo will not hold up. As i said before i see hear alot of speculation and assumptions ..not much fact that can lead to any good conclusion.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...