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

Guest LAL

More likely the divorce talk was due to the ribbing and ridicule and allegations of hoax or leverage to keep Bob off the road with Roger.

Okay, who's going to be the first to invade their privacy and call Judy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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.

More than that, zig-o.. :) ....it would have been very easy for Bob Gimlin to 'cash in', on this "hoax".

Bob was in the perfect position to cash-in, with a tell-all book.....for a couple of reasons...

A) It's not a crime to try passing-off a 'guy-in-a-suit' as a Bigfoot.....especially since 'men in suits' look obviously like 'men in suits'. It's hard to call a fake Bigfoot film a crime....when you're rolling on the floor, laughing your....whatever....off... :lol:

and...

B.) Because Bob did not actively promote the Film, like Roger and Al did.

Bob wasn't guilty of any "big crime".....for those two reasons. The Film ain't a crime...and he did very little, in the way of trying to 'sell it'.

So...after Roger 'cut him out' of the picture/money....and, after Roger passed away...why didn't Gimlin ever decide to write a tell-all book, revealing the fascinating details....

ProtrudingElbows1.jpg

C8ButtSepF308F309AG1Large1.gif

..... of how this elaborate "hoax" was pulled-off???

PattyCalfAG2.gif

That is as big a mystery....as this Film is. ;)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

I can see a potentially exhaustive and worthless argument of semantics brewing if I try and respond to the specifics of your reply to my post.

I'm perfectly content to let others here read the threads preceding mine, read mine, read yours, and make up their minds or form their own opinions.

As to mine, I wouldn't write it differently, and don't feel I need to add or modify anything I said. I expressed my thoughts for others to read, on an issue that personally concerned me. Isn't that what forums are for?

Need I say more?

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
parnassus says:

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.

So he can confess or "I could be wrong" and he won't confess but take his hoax to the grave?

Even if He said that he has lied for 40 years someone would just say that it's because he wants to relax in his older years etc. etc..... or Munn et al could prove that Patty was a flea and tick ridden beast with pink eye and others would still argue that big Bob was known to suffer with conjunctivitis and his wife as a bad housekeeper....

BTW, I agree with you.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

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.

So since you're back on the topic of Bob's "workarounds" regarding Bluff Creek, then I will ask once again-

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

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

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

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

Yes it was Robert Mitchum. I was at first thinking it was Montgomery Cliff. For the most part they did a great job at the historical accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Is that a fact or an opinion?

(see 1 below)

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. (see 2 below)

Kit- since Bill didnt answer your concerns directly, I will. Not to defend him, but because his post was very clear, and I'm not sure why your questioning his reasoning. His only fault may have been not to quote the actual content he was responding too...

#1- He clearly stated in the last line of his post that its his opinion

#2 As far as Gimlin's personal life, his wife, and speculation as to why the divorce took place..

Did you read Parn's post ?

"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."

If he's not suggesting any connection in relation to his character, or to the possibility of it being a hoax, or that he's keeping mum about it being a hoax- then what is the relevancy of bringing up his wife, their divorce, and aspects of his personal life that have little bearing on anything- other than in speculating..?

While we (Bill and I) may disagree on it reaching the level of being appalled, it is just another case of him (Gimlin) being attacked with more "evidence" that is (as I mentioned in my first post) both circumstantial, hearsay, and has little or no bearing on anything- other than to try to paint him in a bad light....

I gave him a +1 for his post, as other's did.

As usual it was well written, and he accurately points out the typical tactics used sometimes by those who may find themselves lacking real substantive evidence.

It reminds me of the kind of stuff that you see in "dirty" political adds.

Of course, that's just my opinion....

A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bob almost getting divorced over the film is not really surprising at all, he was/is a quiet, humble man by nature, living a quiet life, then all of a sudden over night there's people calling him, strangers stopping by his home, stopping him in the streets, interrupting his work and personal life, that would be enough to upset most marriages.

Look at how many divorces were caused by similar circumstances, it happens all the time.

I think it only adds to his credibility that something that had such a negative impact on his marriage and personal life, 45 years later, he is adamant about what happened.

IMO,That alone, makes him a righteous man.

Edited by zigoapex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

So since you're back on the topic of Bob's "workarounds" regarding Bluff Creek, then I will ask once again-

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

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

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?

If you are asking me whether I think that is a definitive statement, then no, I don't think it's a definitive statement. It's a clever dodge, imo.

2myvndk.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

The subject itself can bring a strange look from some when it's brought up, witnesses get ridiculed often enough to the point, some simply don't tell anyone. What Roger an Bob witnessed an filmed was in my opinion, absolutely incredible, it is still bein' talked about today. So I can easily understand such a publicized incredible event causin' troubles...for anyone.

If a person was involved in a hoax with someone, who right from the get go pretty much, was then left out of it, that would be the time to do a little talkin'. Either I'm gettin' mine so ta speak, or it's all over. Bob was left out, an has maintained for 45 years it is what it is. It was not a man in a costume they saw an filmed that fateful day, Oct 20th 1967.

Pat...

More likely the divorce talk was due to the ribbing and ridicule and allegations of hoax or leverage to keep Bob off the road with Roger.

Okay, who's going to be the first to invade their privacy and call Judy?

LAL,

Bob had mentioned to me not long back, after the filmin', he hardly ever heard from Roger. It wasn't till just prior to Roger passin' that Rogers family approached Bob, an suggested he go see Roger in the hospital, that he was in rough shape an didn't have long. Bob went to see him, days later Roger passed away.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

I was thinking of this:

"It only was about Patterson having used a fill-in “Bob Gimlin†because the real Bob Gimlin had a horse business and family that never allowed him to get away to go on the lecture circuit. Besides, Gimlin hated public speaking back then (and really still does, he told me)."

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/patterson-deathbed/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Is that a fact or an opinion?

(post #30)

It is pretty much what Bob himself has said, it is pretty much what Bob has described to me in conversations, so I'd be inclined to say it would be a fact, rather than an opinion. That's my opinion.

Pat...

ps: xspider1,

Cheers back at ya friend ! :thumbsup:

Pat...

Edited by Biggie
Added ending quote tag to fix post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bipedal Ape

so many votes for no... wheres the skeptism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

If you are asking me whether I think that is a definitive statement, then no, I don't think it's a definitive statement. It's a clever dodge, imo.

2myvndk.jpg

Yeah, I'm sure Gimlin was talking about a guy in a business suit when he said that. :lol:

Unfortunately Parn, a costume is still a suit and Gimlin gave a response that omits ALL suits. He doesn't "dodge" anything..

I don't think I've ever seen a case of denial this extreme before. It just doesn't get anymore rediculous than this.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wookie73

Oh give him credit, that was funny!

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...