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

PBeaton

You'll ruin your liver.

Might last longer...if its pickled ? :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

I voted yes. I obviously think that, thanks to Patterson's ingenuity, obsessive devotion, planning and good luck, the PGF is a massively successful hoax on a scale greater than the Cardiff Giant. The specific issues which I believe he is hiding have been raised in other threads, including one of mine, regarding the sudden decision to take the visitors on a 12 hour drive to Yakima instead of to the film site. So I will not mention them further.

I am convinced that Bob Gimlin feels he cannot tell what he knows. I do not know why he can't. I don't know who he promised, for how long, and what he exactly promised.

In the beginning, he seemed to be perfectly willing to tell a story that was different from Roger, while not spilling the beans directly. But then the reaction of his wife to discussions of bigfoot is perhaps the single biggest tell. I am absolutely convinced that no woman worth a hill of beans would come close to divorcing him (his words) over the greatest discovery in history. They have what, three kids? a divorce? when it will sooner or later be proven true? no way, no how, no chance. Not one in a million. I am absolutely convinced that it must have been over the fact that she knew it was a hoax. No question in my mind.

And since he emerged from his long period of silence he acts like a man who hates to lie, but finds himself unable to tell the truth. So he does "workarounds," as the computer hackers/geeks (aka our children) say. What is a workaround? it is finding ways to not tell a lie. eg: He has his lawyer deny Bob H.'s story. When asked a question that might pin him down, he asks and/or answers a different question....classic dodge used by adolescents and politicians. I find the "look me in the eye" act to be downright insulting to my intelligence.

that's my take. Not to be morbid, and I wish the guy L'Chaim, but this hoax will not survive him, imho. Whatever secrets he's still holding by then (probably not many) will not go to the grave with him. He's not that kind of guy, by all the signs. I could be wrong.

p.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think if he hoaxed,I don't think he would have emerged from his silence, would have been much more comfortable to remain quiet,and distance himself from the Bigfoot world.

I would be willing to entertain he discussed a hoax,even prepared to shoot some re-enactment scenes,with a hoax potentially on his mind, maybe Bob and him even discussed it.That is probably the "big secret"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Might last longer...if its pickled ? :D

B) I hope you're right for both our sakes! Cheers my friend! Happy Super Friday, everyone!

Is Gimlin hiding something? Why did they leave Bluff Creek? Just more suspicious questions that lack any answers that would cast the intended aspersions effectively, i.e., grasping at straws. A better question for PGf detractors might be: If it's a hoax, how did they do it?? To that we either get crickets or, more and more erroneous suit part suggestions that simply would not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I would have to say that the poll question itself is flawed by the word "important" in the phrase:

"Do you think Bob Gimlin has hidden important information about the events at Bluff creek?"

Who defines "important information"?

Bob witnessed something which was remarkable, unsettling, and put his life in a rather unique and very unexpected situation. He's made a good faith effort to tell the truth about the actual filming and encounter, but considering human frailty, his dsecriptions over the years may have variances that most human recollections have. We just don't document and compare the varied recollections of others under the microscope the way Bob's remarks are inspected.

But aside from the description of the actual event at Bluff Creek, some people seem to think they have a license to probe virtually every nook and cranny of his life, as if the man has lost his right to any privacy when he witnessed the event at Bluff Creek. For example, another contributor to this discussion comments on Bob's marriage and reports of contemplated divorce from his wife. But by what authority do any of us have a right to invade his marriage and try to judge what factors in his private life may cause difficulties in his marriage? Even to speculate is wreckless gossip (at best) and malicious gossip (at worst).

Some people seem to have an expectation that they are entitled to an answer to any question they wish to ask Bob, not just about the event at Bluff Creek, but about his life, his private thoughts, his marriage, and his personal choices and decisions before or after that event. In their search for proof of suspicious things, "red flags" and indications of behavior they can claim as suggestive of deception and a hoaxed film, these people have apparently decided that any information they want, any question they desire to ask, is "important information" and that Bob had virtually no allowable right to privacy in his life any more.

Frankly, I'm appaulled that speculation about Bob's marriage and difficulties within it is considered proof of anything other than that Bob is human.

The depths that some people will go to in their obsession to try and prove a hoax continues to astonish me, and sadly, in a way that I cannot respect or be silent about.

Bob Gimlin is entitled to some privacy in his life and suspicions the film was hoaxed do not give license to proclaim personal matters of his life as "important information" as a lame justification for wreckless and possibly malicious gossip.

Without some very specific and justifiable definition of what is and is not "important information", I personally think this poll should be shut down and deleted from the forum.

My opinion. Do with it as you will.

Bill

Edited by Bill
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest krakatoa

I thought the questions posed are rather silly and unhelpful. As if anyone's honesty could be measured by popular opinion.

So I chose "undecided" but that answer is to a completely different set of questions. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

To be fair to Parn, Gimlim is the one who mentioned in an interview that Bigfoot almost cost him his marriage. He is the one who went there. But I do agree, there still should be some respect to the privacy of all parties involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Gimlin? you should be asking BH with the many facts that don't fit. get those sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

What goes on in bars should stay in bars! Same as with Vegas. However I played a gig in a bar two nights ago and had a lovely exchange with a gorgeous young woman. I'm not a monk, most men aren't monks. People don't live perfect lives either!

That said I have enough time and mileage on me to be able to test my own memories of many things now. In recent times I've been able to check my memory of certain events, big and small, and compare my memory with the actual event. This is usually with old home movies, videos photos etc. In most cases my memories are solid and accurate about the overall detail. However on many of the details I'm wrong. Wrong about details that I have been rock solid sure of for decades.

For instance take the movie The Longest Day. I saw it in the movies as a kid and I've seen it as a young adult. There is a scene on the invasion beach where a young soldier makes it to safety with his commander except he lost his rifle on the beach. His commander suggests he go back and get his rifle. The soldier does and makes it back safely. Now for 40 years I've maintained that John Wayne was the commander telling the soldier to get his rifle. I would stake my life on it! I just watched the Longest Day and the commander is not John Wayne even though John Wayne was in the movie.

So Gimlin very well can have gaps and memories that falter or are not precise. However he has always had a cohesive memory of the overall event just like I had a cohesive memory of The Longest Day as to its content. BTW certain details of that movie I did indeed remember exactly. I frequently remember exactly certain things I only had fleeting exposure to such as rare songs I heard only once or twice. When I do hear them decades later way, way more often than not my memory is dead on target.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

Catch and release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hairy Man

I am absolutely convinced that no woman worth a hill of beans would come close to divorcing him (his words) over the greatest discovery in history. They have what, three kids? a divorce? when it will sooner or later be proven true? no way, no how, no chance. Not one in a million. I am absolutely convinced that it must have been over the fact that she knew it was a hoax. No question in my mind.

p.

I always thought that his three children were with Judy, but they weren't. The three kids were by his first wife and the children lived with her. Although I forgot to ask directly, I had the impression based on the converstation that I had with his daughter that Judy and Bob had not been married very long prior to Oct. 1967 (but that was my impression).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bob Gimlin seems to be a truthful man, even if he wasn't, 45 years is an awful long time to be sticking to such a story , it would have been so much easier to say they hoaxed it and get over with.

Why would you stick to an untrue story for all this time ?

If hoaxed, he would have to know that the truth would be known some day and it would come down extremely hard on him and his family.

If look at the whole event, it would be more incredible that 2 cowboys with a rented movie camera, and no experience in film or makeup/costume design, could make such an elaborate hoax than

to believe the story. If they were that good at making such a hoax, they would have made more money putting together similar footage for TV or Hollywood, instead of wasting there unbelievable film talent. If it were hoaxed,why didn't they shoot more footage later on ?

Today's technologies are so advanced that you would think it would be easy to pick apart the film, but it seems to only add credibility to the footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

..

Edited by OregonMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

I just watched the Longest Day and the commander is not John Wayne even though John Wayne was in the movie.

OFF-TOPIC ALERT: I saw it first as a child in the theaters too, and now own it......... was it Robert Mitchum?! wacko.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
Bob witnessed something which was remarkable, unsettling, and put his life in a rather unique and very unexpected situation. He's made a good faith effort to tell the truth about the actual filming and encounter, but considering human frailty, his dsecriptions over the years may have variances that most human recollections have.

Is that a fact or an opinion?

Frankly, I'm appaulled that speculation about Bob's marriage and difficulties within it is considered proof of anything other than that Bob is human.

Bill, I would like to join you in being appalled. Whomever is doing this considering as proof of something more than Bob being human, I would like to be directed to so that I may express my appallment. Hoaxing is human, too, but if anyone has taken Bob's discussing his almost being divorced over the film as proof of a hoax, I shall join my appallment to yours.

Where was that exactly?

I also am not a fan of labelling the asking of questions and trying to make sense of things as taking anything as proof.

Judy's reactions as described by Gimlin don't make sense to me in the context of really filming Bigfoot, but I certainly could not call them proof of anything other than two people having their own personal issues that are not known to me or of great interest to me. That doesn't mean that when a person who regularly speaks publicly of his alleged experiences and includes among them a recounting of nearly being left because of the film he is attached to, that we should be appalled by people being skeptical of that under the circumstances he describes.

Somebody calls it proof of hoax? Appall away.

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...