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

Crowlogic

I exhausted all ability to carry on digging up new things to expend energy over with the current state of PGF affairs about 6 months ago. While I can fully support a any true hands on investigation/study of the film this thread and poll seems to be little more than the need to spin wheels for the sake of spinning wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

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..

oh, so your saying it is so, makes it so? You may think that is the case...you may wish it is the case, but when people deceive other people, they make distinctions in their thoughts and statements (called rationalizing) just like this. Bill Clinton is probably the most famous, but it seems that other politicians are overtaking him in the art of "dodging". And everyone does it. You may want to review your personal experience with how people deceive.

unfortunately it seems he has been dodging.

I'm sure you have seen the videos showing the "look in my eyes" stunt. Do you feel that is a straightforward answer, or an attempt to manipulate the audience into not pursuing the issue? and the dodging "there were only two men there that day," statements. Do you think he is referring to October 20, 1967, when no one including Bob H. contends that anyone else was there with them?

I think you are being manipulated. You may not think you are. We'll find out who's right. I take that back...you'll find out.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

parnassus wrote:

"....and the dodging "there were only two men there that day," statements."

parn....the PGF has been controversial/un-settled for over 44 years, now. You're gonna need somethin' a WHOLE LOT more powerful than Bob Gimlin saying "that day"....to bring this baby in for a landing. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bob Gimlin must be a genius, and the grand daddy master hoaxer. He produced a suit far beyond anything we have ever seen out of Hollywood with their massive budgets at the time. He shoot the film just clear enough, and just fuzzy enough to prevent any clear indication of a hoax, even when modern technology is applied,digitized, and looked at frame by frame. His life,and anyone remotely associated with the films, life has been a topic of discussion and scrutiny for all these years. Every little single aspect that can be put through the grind has been. I think we need to think about how realistically one can say Gimlin masterminded such a huge hoax. Manufacturing tracks,and keeping the track way looking realistic at the same time, coming up with that amazing suite,his masterful hoaxing filming skills, his manipulation of the media,his ability to stand by the lie all these years,even though it has been pointed out, and rightly so, he would make even more money now if he did pronounce it a hoax,even if it wasn't lol

Yep, Bob Gimlin is genius,there can be no other answer,because he would have to be even luckier than he would be to run into an actual Sasquatch that day, to pull off this hoax,unless he was a genius.

My hats off to you Bob, the only real question here is,who are the bigger fools? The believers? Or the debunkers?

Maybe we will all know soon enough, unless Melba's a genius to..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

It's really a stretch to interpret Gimlin as being evasive . Christopher Murphy quotes him quite definitively in "Know the Sasquatch" on Bob H's accusations and IMO only wishful thinking combined with presumptions about the mans intentions could create a different meaning in the mind of the hearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

parnassus:

when you say:

"but when people deceive other people, they make distinctions in their thoughts and statements (called rationalizing) just like this. Bill Clinton is probably the most famous, but it seems that other politicians are overtaking him in the art of "dodging". And everyone does it."

may we conclude that you acknowledge that you are a part of the group know as "everyone", and thus you do what you say everyone does?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wufgar
but when people deceive other people, they make distinctions in their thoughts and statements (called rationalizing) just like this. Bill Clinton is probably the most famous, but it seems that other politicians are overtaking him in the art of "dodging". And everyone does it.

It would be very hard to imagine a more desperate (and wholly self-serving) rationalization than this. I guess one doesn't need credibility when one is an anonymous poster, such as myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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?

For a certainty.

Need I say more?

Yes, please. The handle of the person that did this...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

You are still playing semantics games. Fine.

The remark quoted from my post refers to "speculation" which may be singular or plural, in terms of source, and thus could be attributed to one person, to several persons, or could be a summation of a general flow of conversation, which may be occurring in this forum alone, in this and other forums alike, or in other discusion venues.

And I conclude the post with a statement that the above is my opinion. My remark is a truthful perception of mine on the activity of this topic of discussion, my opinion about what is being talked about, and my perception is phrased as I choose, of which I am entitled to do when I offer my opinion.

Now is my turn to ask a question: Do you have any intention to answer the root question I posed, which is what defines "important information", what is and is not such?

That is clearly the focus of my remarks and you are only questioning or responding to what is out of that focus.

All verbal jousting aside, Kit, your entire investigation into the PGF and your ambitions to prove the PGF a hoax are fatally flawed by your simple inability to face up to the elemental contridiction that you quote Roger, Bob Gimlin and others and try to use their remarks to show that the PGF is a hoax, the PGF story a lie, and yet you fail to realize that you cannot use men's words as truthful proof of an event if you conclude the men were lying. The only thing you can prove is their words are not factually reliable and thus prove nothing, and once the words prove nothing (because they are unreliable), your whole proof of hoax falls apart for the house of cards it really is. I do not understand why you don't get this?

Anyways, commentary concluded.

On my remark you quoted, if you disagree, simply post your own opinion of disagreement. Tell us why you feel there is no such speculation as I described and you underlined for emphasis.

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

oh, so your saying it is so, makes it so? You may think that is the case...you may wish it is the case, but when people deceive other people, they make distinctions in their thoughts and statements (called rationalizing) just like this. Bill Clinton is probably the most famous, but it seems that other politicians are overtaking him in the art of "dodging". And everyone does it. You may want to review your personal experience with how people deceive.

unfortunately it seems he has been dodging.

There is nothing even remotely plausible in thinking that Gimlin was referring to "a man in a business suit" when discussing the subject in the film. Show me any evidence at all to support the claim, because all I see here is grasping at straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

This is for the subject of how clear or unclear Gimlin has been regarding his once greatly trusted and longtime friend Bob Heironimus' claim. PGF believers should never be allowed to omit that the person that they villify in Heironimus is a former longtime trusted friend of Gimlin's with very real ties to both Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, as well as the PGF. This is a person who has protected Gimlin when first faced with a determined skeptical investigator and a person Gimlin has long held in confidence. Gimlin waffles from clear to vague depending on the stance of the person he is dealing with. To a believer he will be catagorical in his dismissal. To an informed skeptic he will be opaque.

A transcription I made some time ago...

We know that he got sick of not getting paid in 1975 enough to sue Patricia Patterson. Too bad neither of them will talk about how much the out-of-court settlement was. The point is that there are very good reasons to ask Gimlin hard questions. I have heard a recording of Gimlin at a Bigfoot conference where he is wooing the crowd with how much he appreciates them and fielding questions. I've been hearing that people like Melissa and Kathy have spoken at length with Gimlin and have even discussed Heironimus but in lieu of specifics it kind of leaves us hanging about what the exchanges were like. What we need is an exchange where someone is asking Gimlin about Heironimus and we can listen to it with a critical ear. Well, you're in for a treat because it just so happens that I have just such a recording here. Here is a January 26th, 2008 recording of Bob Gimlin answering questions from Bigfoot enthusiasts at at the Washington State Capital Museum program on "Giants in the Mountains: The Search for Sasquatch". Somebody asks him about Bob Heironimus and he just kind of brushes it off. It's like the woman is annoyed she even has to ask and makes a point that she's going to believe whatever Gimlin tells her.

Female Bigfoot enthusiast: "There's a man... I don't remember his last name."

Bob Gimlin: "Heironimus."

FBE: "Yes, exactly. That claims he was the man in the suit. I don't buy his story but I just wondered what your thoughts are on him."

BG: "Well, thank you very much. Uh... I don't ever wanna try to put somebody down that's just trying to make a few bucks on the film. But, the bottom line is some think he was... I think he was... He was conned into something, I believe. That's my belief. I dunno. I know Bob Heironimus real well. I've know him for quite a few years. Uh... He's like a lot of people if he thinks he's gonna be famous and make some money. (inaudible)...things, I think. But other than that, I don't wanna say anything bad about Bob Heironimus. All I can tell you is there was no one down in Bluff Creek at that time except Roger and I."

Gimlin was once a used car salesman and a charmer personality. He makes things up on the spot and has rarely ever been given in depth questioning by an informed skeptic. To Chris Packham he just said he could have been hoaxed by Roger but maybe he would of shot it. Watch that interview from 2:40...

To Greg Long he suggested Heironimus' family just "prevaricates", Heironimus was destitute, was jealous of Gimlin's success, did it for money, wasn't there with him and as far as he could tell, and compared him to Ted Bundy...

Bob Gimlin to Greg Long September 18th, 2001 on Bob Heironimus' claim of being Patty:

"Well, yeah, I can comment on that. I know Bob. He's been a friend of mine for a long time, but as far as I'm concerned, he was not there that I know of, and I don't think he was there at all. And probably he's tryin' to make a buck. These guys are coming out of the wall saying they've been in a suit down in Northern California."

"I'd say the story Bob has come up with is pretty far-fetched as far as I'm concerned. You know, I've confronted Bob on that. I've said, 'Hey, what's going on?' But he won't talk to me about it. We're still friends. He just lives a little ways from me. I've worked with him, and I've done things with Bob. I've rode horses with him. But this thing that he's telling all the people around that he was in a suit in Northern California, it kind of just don't make much sense to me"

Long asks Gimlin if he's saying Heironimus is lying.

"I used to trust Bob a lot. But then lately the whole family and him kind of prevaricates. They think things. You know, I don't make statements against my friends or neighbours, but this kind of thing is out of proportion as far as I'm concerned."

Long again asks if Gimlin is saying Heironimus is lying.

"As far as I'm concerned he is."

Long then asks Gimlin why Heironimus was risking his retirement to accuse Gimlin of being part of the hoax. Gimlin suggests Heironimus is envious of his material possessions.

Long:

"Does he have a grudge against you?"

Gimlin:

"Well, I don't know if Bob has a grudge against me. Bob just screws around working for ranches and stuff and didn't save much money, and he still don't. He spends money pretty rapidly as far as I can tell."

Author Michael McLeod visited and interview Gimlin for his book Anatomy of a Beast, but it is not known and doubtful the McLeod identified himself as a skeptic. In the interview Gimlin says a number of things of interest...

- Roger was away from the campsite when he returned to tighten a loosened shoe and he felt this was strange because Patterson's horse was not gone. Patterson returned later saying he had gone for a walk and then suggested they do the overnighter. This would be the same where Patterson allegedly pulled out his camera for the first time in that three week trip according to both Patterson and Gimlin. Roger had not even filmed the BCM tracks that he went there to see.

- Gimlin reverts to Roger's horse flipping over rather than the acrobatic one handed dismount and camera extraction.

- Gimlin says they both noted the creature to be female as opposed to where he often elsewhere says he had no idea at the time.

More can be read here in the chapter "The Backup Man" in McCleod's book...

http://books.google.ca/books?id=_6FmjJYd13wC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=michael+mcleod+gimlin+bigfoot&source=bl&ots=SgxAZYwFJB&sig=M7nfvUX6tS9tWBWa7KVY-qqYtHo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KT7vTseRELDXiAKWyJTbBA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

So you are suggesting that because of his manor of speech he cannot be believed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bipedal Ape

No matter how many red flags surround this event people just dont want to let the PGF go. Just because this is a hoax doesnt mean the end of the bigfoot phenomenon. Who knows maybe someone will shoot another video soon which will keep the debate going for another 40 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

He simply sounds like a man that does not want to come out and openly slam his friend. He sounds like a man who does not want to fuel the "he said she said" kind of crap that he is dealing with here,and has to much left over respect for Bob to come right out and call him a liar. He knows full well if he does, someone will go running straight back with it, or plaster it all over in some sort of lame **** Tracey attempt create some sort of "sinister" plot.

This method of keep throwing the poo and see what will stick has been going on for years. As society matures, and mentality changes, it just gets worse and worse, and quiet frankly, its the very "woo" your attempting to debunk. How long has this debate been going on? When does an "agenda" become an "obsession"? The first year? The second? How about the fifth year? It does not even make a difference anymore if it is a hoax or not,the method of attempting to debunk it, in itself,is a disgrace.

Edited by JohnC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KentuckyApeman

My humble thoughts on this. First, I've just received Chris Murphy's book Bigfoot Film Journal. Haven't read it in depth, just skimmed through it. But it does go into the Gimlin/Dahinden law suit against Pattersons wife(her share of the spoils).

Now, if it all was a hoax, why wouldn't Mr. Gimlin simply threaten to blow the whistle if he doesn't get his piece of the pie? To hold everyone's feet over the fire or else he goes public with all the skullduggery?

Dragging it all through the court system could take years(and did I believe). Now the arguement could be made that such a move as exposing the film as a hoax would put an end to any future earnings Gimlin may be able to reap, so he opted to go the legal route.

But this was way before the Internet, and no one had an inkling of an idea of how big the whole thing would become.

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...