Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kitakaze

Has Gimlin Been Totally Straight About Bluff Creek?

  

64 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Please feel free to specify and discuss your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

As an opponent of the PGF, it would necessarily follow that I believe that 'Bob Gimlin has kept hidden key information'.

I've asked myself, how is it that Bob who seemingly is a good man, could, with a clear conscience, keep hidden, information concerning the PGF, for as long as he has. The conclusion that I've come to, and it is just my opinion, is that Roger and Bob G. may have had what amounts to an oath between themselves, to never reveal what actually happened at Bluff Creek that afternoon. Not an oath that would involve a ritual of some kind, but a strong agreement between two young cowboys that were good friends. With Roger's death, Bob may have felt an even greater conviction about never revealing everything. He may also have felt that the financial well being of Patricia Patterson was tied to keeping hidden things hidden. It would become easier and easier with the passing of each year, for Bob to keep his promise to his friend, Roger. Bob has kept this area of his life compartmentalized and well insulated with promises made, and by the passage of time.

Had it not been for the advent of the internet, Bob could have lived out his life in relative obscurity, content with making an occasional appearance at bigfoot rally or convention. As it is now, his every appearance and every word is documented for the world to scrutinize.

Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeG

Has someone with a pre-determined view of the answer just asked yet another leading question?

A/ Yes

B/ No

C/ Don't know

Mike

Edited by MikeG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

To be fair, the poll that Kit has put up has options which are diametrically opposed.

I dont see it as a leading question, and for the record I am the 1 "undecided" vote.

If anything it's a question that (in my opinion) like much of the PGf debate, calls for alot of subjective opinion, and is difficult to really come to a clear conclusion.

So much of the back story debate seems to be back and forth arguing about mostly circumstantial evidence, and tons of hearsay.

Alot of "he said's" and "she said's" and "so and so told me's"

Doesnt work in court, so I'm not sure why so many seem to think it should work here....

Just my two cents..

Art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

To be fair, the poll that Kit has put up has options which are diametrically opposed.

I dont see it as a leading question, and for the record I am the 1 "undecided" vote.

If anything it's a question that (in my opinion) like much of the PGf debate, calls for alot of subjective opinion, and is difficult to really come to a clear conclusion.

So much of the back story debate seems to be back and forth arguing about mostly circumstantial evidence, and tons of hearsay.

Alot of "he said's" and "she said's" and "so and so told me's"

Doesnt work in court, so I'm not sure why so many seem to think it should work here....

Just my two cents..

Art

Hence...the analysis of the 'film subject', itself. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

The more this axe gets ground down to the haft, the more it looks like a blunt chisel.

In fairness, one can be convinced that the PGF is genuine and still believe that Gimlin has kept some details to himself.

Is this just another attempt to impeach Gimlin, and by doing so impeach the film?

I keep going back to the modern forensic analysis presented by National Geographic. They concluded that the film depicts a living, non-human subject. And they're not the only group to apply modern forensics to reach this conclusion.

I favor the modern metrics over speculating beetle-like over bones that have long since been picked clean.

Edited by JDL
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

The more this axe gets ground down to the haft, the more it looks like a blunt chisel.

In fairness, one can be convinced that the PGF is genuine and still believe that Gimlin has kept some details to himself.

Is this just another attempt to impeach Gimlin, and by doing so impeach the film?

I keep going back to the modern forensic analysis presented by National Geographic. They concluded that the film depicts a living, non-human subject. And they're not the only group to apply modern forensics to reach this conclusion.

I favor the modern metrics over speculating beetle-like over bones that have long since been picked clean.

It's just one more thread to 'sing the evils of Gimlin'....in. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

DeAtley claimed P&G would go to bars and womanize. Maybe Bob left that part out. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bipedal Ape

its clear something went on there that only gimlin knows about...

636x460design_01.jpg

Edited by Bipedal Ape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I think Bob has been totally straight about what happened at Bluff Creek, just my opinion.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

DeAtley claimed P&G would go to bars and womanize. Maybe Bob left that part out. <_<

Aint that what bars are for?

NS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

I thought they had something to do with drinking. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I thought they had something to do with drinking. :huh:

LAL,

Someone say drinkin' ? Cheers ! :)

Pat...

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...