Jump to content
Guest

Why Did Gimlin Go Home

Recommended Posts

Guest

As a corollary to my questioning why Roger wouldn't try to continue searching Bluff Creek for a corroborating second film sequence or supporting evidence, I'm now asking us to examine Bob's mindset. My issue is: is it more likely for someone who had just seen a history-making event to continue to participate, or to pack up and go roofing? To frame it another way, which is more likely: someone who says he must leave to return to a part-time off-season job had just witnessed an astounding event, someone who says he must return to a part-time job has just finished all the laborious effort of staging a hoax and now wants it to be over.

Bob Gimlin sees bigfoot in the open from 90 feet, a pretty close distance, and has an extended observation time of close to a minute (Roger has to extricate the camera before filming his half-minute sequence). He knows he's seen something undocumented. He knows they have it on film. Yet within 24 hours of this potentially life-altering event, he tells Roger, "Ya know buddy, I can't stay here and wander aimlessly through these woods any longer, a have a part-time job that is WAY more important that I have to leave here and return to it RIGHT AWAY."

Really?

We're not talking about finding a new variant of the woodpecker species. We're not even talking about finding the chupacabra dog-thing. Bigfoot's allure rests in the fact it is so very human, thus potentially very intelligent, possibly a parallel evolutionary branch to modern man. It's discovery would impact the creation vs. evolution debate, pose numerous questions as to what constitutes a person for hunting and self-defense purposes, and create the need to assess the threat to woodsmen as we encroach on bigfoot habitat regions. Short of proof of alien life, there is no discovery that could parallel an authenticated bigfoot.

Yet Bob heads home.

And with the exception of a few interviews conducted with Roger in the immediate aftermath of Roger's media announcements, stays away from all things Bigfoot for 36 years. It wasn't until 2003 that he began participating in bigfootery.

Lay persons stay away from bigfootery because they see it as full of crackpots and hoaxers. But Bob would know it's a genuine quest and, should evidence later surface to validate its existence, he and Roger would receive credit as the first to provide tangible documentation of the creature. People would say, "They were telling the truth, they DID discover a heretofore unknown bipedal primate."

He was so determined not to participate that Roger had to use a double as a Gimlin stand-in on his tour. Yet Bob was one of only two humans on the planet in the late 1960s to have evidence of an actual sighting.

Why would he distance himself? Why would he insist he had to go home and cease the search within 24 hours of the filming? A reasonable person could conclude it was because he was uncomfortable with the hoax he allowed himself to be talked into by his friend. Perhaps he participated thinking it was going to be billed as a reenactment in Roger's forthcoming documentary, and balked after he saw that Roger was going to claim the incident was a fresh, live sighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I seen one up close, like ten feet away in 1984.I was amazed and curious and started to follow him untill he chased me away. Scared me so bad I repressed the memory untill last month. There is a theory that infrasound makes people so uneasy they have to leave an area immediately. I read where a hunter had a spot for years, him and his buddy heard strange noises maybe a sasquatch. Anyways he wouldn't go back for several years. Infrasound is thought to be why some people can't live around wind farms for example. some people are thinking sasquatches produce infrasound which could explain his fear of impending doom and he blamed it on his job. Though he probably did need to not miss work, bosses can be unforgiving at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

All I can say is that people have LIVES to live, and running into bigfoot doesn't mean your obligations to pay your rent and show up to work just magically disappear. Also, sometimes the events are FREAKY and scary. I was out in the evening and was "escorted out" by vocalizations and chest slaps/branch breaks... do you think I go out there in the evening anymore??? HECK NO. I understand folks that have huge, life changing encounters and who want nothing more to do with it all. My encounters were small potatoes and it makes ME much, much more cautious in the woods now.

That's my guess. We all have different belief systems. Not knowing the man at all, I think this reaction is reasonable, because people respond in different ways. Not wanting to run into a 500 lb apex predator whom you've annoyed once in the woods again is actually quite reasonable in my opinion. Not everyone wants to "make history". A reasonable person avoids danger.

Yet Bob was one of only two humans on the planet in the late 1960s to have evidence of an actual sighting.

i doubt very much that that is true. They were two who caught video and spoke about it, not who had experiences in the 1960's - there must be dozens of such encounters not recorded anywhere, or recorded elsewhere...

Edited by madison5716

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Thepattywagon

I don't think Gimlin had the same tireless passion for Bigfoot that Patterson did. And even though he saw one that day, he was probably more concerned with keeping the peace at home and getting back to work than he was marketing any film. And maybe that's why he never hung in there with the entire project like Roger did.

But that does not detract from the veracity of his account of what he saw that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Holliday

why leave?

it could be that hoax or not, the man had bills to pay.

if he was a roofer ,like most contractors , he takes work when its available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Why would he distance himself? Why would he insist he had to go home and cease the search within 24 hours of the filming?

Why are you asking questions that have already been answered a gazillion times? Bob G already stayed longer than he intended to. He had to get back for work......and he was worried about his truck getting caught there in a landslides. He wanted to make it out before he got stuck. They got the film. Time to go home. The when the film wasn't believed and he became the focus of ridicule......well there is your answer.

And with the exception of a few interviews conducted with Roger in the immediate aftermath of Roger's media announcements, stays away from all things Bigfoot for 36 years. It wasn't until 2003 that he began participating in bigfootery.

That's not true. Bob Gimlin was actually corresponding with bigfoot researchers like Dmitri Bayanov in the Soviet Union for many years and he attended the Manlike Monsters on Trial conference in Vancouver, Canada in 1978, off his own back as a member of the audience and not as a paid speaker, or any kind of speaker.

Please, misinformation should not be spread. If you don't have the facts then try and restrain from making them up. Thanks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

For a 'Hard Data Lover' you sure seem hooked on speculation.

The film wasn't proof positive and the money wasn't a sure thing. Of course he's going to return to work. Gimlin also spoke of the whole Bigfoot situation as affecting his marriage, so the answer is pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well, a job is a job. Seeing Bigfoot doesn't mean a guy can cancel out on his obligations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oonjerah

Bob "stays away from all things Bigfoot for 36 years." ... "Short of proof of alien life, there is

no discovery that could parallel an authenticated bigfoot."

I know why he did it, avoided the "acclaim & the limelight." You may think that 90-99% of people

in his position would have stuck with it, ridden the wave, enjoyed their great achievement ...

but that's a projection.

Bob didn't because he's Bob. He's not you or me or anyone but himself. He doesn't think or

feel just like we do. He didn't like the aftermath, wanted to be clear of it, so he was true to

himself.

Someone who doesn't know him at all decides that there's only one possible explanation for

his reaction: Because he knew it was a hoax, a fraud, he chickened out!! That explanation is

so narrow -- you'd have to have a very limited set of motivations to even think that way.

Should I just go around smearing everyone who doesn't act the way I do, the way I would?

Shall I assume that those who act/react differently than me must have bad motives instead

of good ones?

No. I don't wanna be a fool for making false accusations about things I don't understand.

More likely, I do say quite often, "Gee! I don't understand why he did that."

(OTOH, my rules/opinions are somewhat different for people that I don't like.)

Edited by Oonjerah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kerchak, thanks for adding the Gimlin participation data points. I agree misinformation should not be spread, and intentional misinformation is inappropriate. However, as there is no place where Roger's and Bob's pre and post activities are collected into a comprehensive timeline or infographic, I assure you that searching threads and blogs leads only to snippets of data that must be assembled separately in the minds of each reader. The absence of some pieces leaving holes that leads to incongruities.

Oonjerah, yes, it is a projection, and thus not infallible. Point taken. I'm the type who would pull over after witnessing a horrific accident in order to try to assist and to provide documentation of the events to authorities. I wouldn't hesitate to call the friends with whom I was to meet and tell them I will be delayed because of an extraordinary event that unfolded. Others may not bother to stop and/or would not want to be late to wherever they are going. Similarly, I am projecting my response to seeing something astounding, something carried by national news outlets. I would put my ordinary life on hold while the extraordinary plays out. I presume even a bigfoot agnostic would feel a sense of the profound when confronted personally by such a being.

To be clear, I'm not trying to smear Bob or anyone else. I am trying to weigh evidence between a hoax and an authentic sighting. It's safe to say the entire scientific community, a few excepted, believes Bob to be lying, because otherwise they would accept the existence of bigfoot based on the visual evidence. If it's not a hoax, it can be nothing else. I'm not saying Bob is lying, but I am not excluding that possibility. Examination of the timeline is impersonal, scientific. There was the capacity to get the film to the Seattle airport on the eve of the sighting, or there was not (drive time too long, shipping outlets closed, etc.). Same with development of film requiring specialized facilities.

I'm examining the actions of the participants from the standpoint of choices made. I'm looking at their decision processes. I haven't personally come across many discussions that examine the decisions, as opposed to the viability of the purported actions. Exception: I have found lots of discussion regarding the rain as a factor to break camp. Thus, I took it further to examine the lack of a site return (rain does stop). If thread viewers find it exhausting, feel free to move along and not participate! :-)

Analogies: There was scant evidence that Scott Peterson killed his wife Laci. But most people felt his actions reflected the decision process of someone lying about events. His dyed hair and attempt to flee across the border showed a consciousness of guilt. Similarly, OJ Simpson's attempt to flee with a passport, a disguise, a gun, and ten thousand dollars shows a similar consciousness, backed by his words to detective Lange, "Ah, just tell them I'm all sorry. You can tell them later on today and tomorrow that I was sorry and that I'm sorry that I did this to the police department." One can infer O.J. did not believe the open arrest warrant was based on a frame-up by the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

He likely went home for a JD on the rocks :drinks: , and wondered what he had just witnessed? That's my speculative answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think not participating would probably be the best solution. If you are getting idea's from these questions through the reading of material, blogs, etc, then you would be well aware of how many times these questions have been asked. You can also review all the answers at these same sights, and realize that life often interferes with what so many skeptics claim they would do. Do you honestly think after forty some odd years, you are going to come up with something that has not been asked or exhaustively covered before? I suggest you take your research a little farther, include circumstance that life can bring, and death in Patterson's case, how life was back then, and the state of the Bigfoot phenomena as a whole. Try reading some of Kitakaze's threads, I think you would find them right up your ally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Kerchak, thanks for adding the Gimlin participation data points. I agree misinformation should not be spread, and intentional misinformation is inappropriate.

Fair enough. No worries.

However, as there is no place where Roger's and Bob's pre and post activities are collected into a comprehensive timeline or infographic, I assure you that searching threads and blogs leads only to snippets of data that must be assembled separately in the minds of each reader. The absence of some pieces leaving holes that leads to incongruities.

Point taken and understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I do, btw, appreciate the time everyone takes to reply, repetitive or not. I am attempting to bring slightly nuanced differences between my questions and past questions to the table of discussion.

Either Patty is real, an amazing evolutionary spin-off as near to humans as any creature can get, or it's a hoax. If real, it can be supported by film examination -- a process Bill has being doing marvelously, and by corroborating evidence found in support of the creature's existence, which Moneymaker and Bobo are on top of. One of the prior statements was genuine, one facetious. Can you tell which? :-)

While Bill has consolidated his findings into an ever-updating report, no one has collected into one place all the pieces of evidence in support of the contrary view, a possible hoax, with an equivalent report that examines various claims. There are many disparate data points, each of which are potentially innocuous, that when pieced together begins to create a weighty argument that a hoax was, in fact possible.

Another:

Roger was undoubtedly under a lot of pressure to produce *something*. He had rented a camera and kept it past its return date. He enlisted the support of others on the promise of a forthcoming documentary. He had nothing on film except some men riding around the woods on horses, some interviews, and a recreation of casting a foot. How could he return home with just that? What would he say to his backers, friends, and family? How was he going to create a documentary with nothing whatever on camera?

Time was running out. Gimlin had to return home. Funds were drying up. He needed to come up with something to turn his situation around, and soon.

Right at that very moment in time, he does what no one else has done before or since: he comes face to face with a bigfoot in open terrain with camera in hand.

Talk about fortuitous timing.

Or did he have access to a suit that he held off using in the hopes of finding a live animal, until the last possible moment when it was do or die, and he resorted to the suit.

I have found many people who've discussed the fact that a bigfoot documentarian can happen upon a bigfoot by going to where bigfoot sightings take place. I've not found any that discuss the tendency for anyone who publicly takes on a financially-risky endeavor to feel ever-increasing pressure to produce results to validate their decision in the eyes of peers. Roger was likely under as much pressure in the final Gimlin-availability days as Madoff was to continue producing 11% returns in an 8% market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

I have to say; given all these same old tiring questions that have been answered over and over in this forum, Why are you here? And have you been here before? Under a different name? I suspect your intentions are not admiral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...