Jump to content

Bob Gimlin Was Interviewed April 16Th On C2C


Recommended Posts

Consider the film?  Why don't we consider the Witnesses more?

 

Al at the general store:   Al can confirm at least Roger and Bob's claimed actions that evening.  He can confirm a Roger and Bob 'sighting' that PM (and maybe give an exact time) on Oct 20th 1967 at his store.  That means whatever story Roger and Bob tell must fit into that sighting/encounter. Al might know if Roger claimed by the time they met in the store if Roger claimed the film was mailed out then, still needed to be mailed out.  He would know if they made any phone calls there.  He might know if they claimed to have made other calls prior to their arrival and if so, where.  Might not either.

 

The Newspaper man:  The man who they talked to that night on the phone post-encounter can confirm via the published story Roger and Bob claimed to have filmed Patty. They claimed the film was in process of being developed.  They would not have any knowledge of what the film looked like at that time if they were telling the truth.  This nails down their story and there is no going back.  They have no idea if someone arrives with a camera at bluff creek and takes pics of the area or just the trackway or both.  The things others find much match what Roger and Bob claim in that interview and to others.  

 

Lyle Loverty: He (or possibly the other people in his jeep) can confirm if they remember seeing tracks at Bluff Creek and when.  The PGF was an encounter which would have included the Tracks Patty left, the tracks from Gimlin and Bob's horses and the pack horse running wild (3 horses) the running bootprints of Roger running toward bluff creek across it and up the other side and the plant down.  He can confirm the horses running away tracks as well as possibly the tracks of Gimlin's horse following patty some distance down the "Bowling alley".  Loverty can confirm if he remembers seeing outlines of plaster from the Tracks Bob and Roger claimed to make at that time prior to Loverty's arrival.

 

Finally he can confirm if there were any signs of ALL those things the encounter created (ie) encounter traces - not just the Patty tracks.  He claimed there were not any tracks he remembers the day before the event  but admits he could be mistaken.  That is what honest people say.   Like a football play the "call on the field" is Loverty did not think he did see this disruption of Bluff Creek (all those tracks and traces of all the activity) until after the encounter.  He saw it after and not before.

 

What does a hoax or real encounter have to include?

This means generally any hoax story or a truthful encounter story needs to fit into those mains places and times. That is, no sign of the encounter one day before. It means any story would have them making castes that day of the prints and ending up at the General Store to seen by witness Al.  The tracks would have to have plaster traces on a couple of tracks those who got there early on since Roger claimed to have made a couple.    The track shape feet in the pics taken by Loverty would need to generally match those of the plaster castings with some slight variation to account for a flexible foot vs a wooden foot.  

 

Oct 19th

One day Before encounter:  Lyle Loverty (and we assume his crew) report no sign of any tracks at Bluff Creek one day from the encounter

I                                                 or early that same day of the encounter.

I

I <----------------------------- Oct 20th, 1967 early PM.   Roger and Bob Claim to film Patty in a surprise encounter 

I                                     The encounter results in the activity/ tracks everywhere from Gimlin, Roger

I                                      and horses AND PATTY's Trackway limited to across the creek.                                    

I<-------------------------------- Roger and Bob do various post PGF encounter activities which include making

I                                       some plaster prints, Reel #2 activity and so on.

I

I<-------------------------------- (getting dark)

I

I<--------------------------------Roger and Bob arrive at Civilization.   They end up in Al's store.

I                                      Through some step by step they mail out a film and talk to a news reporter.

I

I

I<--------------------------------The next day Oct 21? Lyle Loverty (and others?) arrive at the site.  Lyle L takes pictures of some 

I                                      trackway prints.

I

I<-------------------------------- Sunday Oct 22 there is a showing of the PGF film at Al DeAtley's place to invited guests.

I

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Hi everybody, since I'm a new member I'm not allowed to create topics yet but I have a few questions regarding the pgf. feel free to move my post in case it doesn't belong here. I could not find any topics to that answer my questions.

 

so my question is: what is the exact story of bob gimlin not getting paid and selling his rights to rene dahinden? 

I read a lot about the pgf recently and afaik the story goes like this:

 

gimlin was promised to get 1/3 of all the earnings right after the filming but patterson never paid him (was there any disagreement?). after patterson had died in 1972, gimlin sued al deatley and patterson's wife for the money and won that lawsuit in 1976 (I think that's what greg long says, don't know if it's true though).

he then sold his rights on the film for about 10 dollars to rene dahinden, who previously helped gimlin financially to sue deatley and patricia patterson.

 

is that correct? does the timeline fits? I feel like I don't get the whole story. I always thought that gimlin didn't make any profit from the movie and it seemed odd that he sold his rights for about 10 dollars only to stop dahinden from harassing him any longer.

 

hope you get my questions since I'm not a native speaker.

 

best regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, smoove said:

Hi everybody, since I'm a new member I'm not allowed to create topics yet but I have a few questions regarding the pgf. feel free to move my post in case it doesn't belong here. I could not find any topics to that answer my questions.

 

so my question is: what is the exact story of bob gimlin not getting paid and selling his rights to rene dahinden? 

I read a lot about the pgf recently and afaik the story goes like this:

 

gimlin was promised to get 1/3 of all the earnings right after the filming but patterson never paid him (was there any disagreement?). after patterson had died in 1972, gimlin sued al deatley and patterson's wife for the money and won that lawsuit in 1976 (I think that's what greg long says, don't know if it's true though).

he then sold his rights on the film for about 10 dollars to rene dahinden, who previously helped gimlin financially to sue deatley and patricia patterson.

 

is that correct? does the timeline fits? I feel like I don't get the whole story. I always thought that gimlin didn't make any profit from the movie and it seemed odd that he sold his rights for about 10 dollars only to stop dahinden from harassing him any longer.

 

hope you get my questions since I'm not a native speaker.

 

best regards


 

welcome to the BFF Smoove.  Glad to have you.

 

i don’t have your answer but one thing you will find here is many helpful posters (in both skeptic and believer groups) who are 1) very knowledgeable and 2) very helpful.

 

info will be coming quickly I’ll predict by some poster soon. 
 

welcome aboard.

Edited by Backdoc
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoove:

 

The facts are as follows:

 

Upon Roger's death in Jan. 1972, Bob Gimlin decided to file a lawsuit to settle the issue of ownership and financial rights to the film. The judge ruled that Bob would receive 51% ownership, plus licensing rights to still pictures and images from the film. Patricia (Roger's widow) would receive 49% ownership, and licensing rights to receive money from any TV or film production that wanted to show the actual film (in motion, as compared to still frames from the film). 

 

Bob did then sell/assign his ownership and licensing rights to Rene Dahinden, reportedly for either $1 or $10(I've heard reports of both numbers, but have not yet verified which myself).

 

As to Bob's motivation to file the suit, and his motivation to sell to Dahinden for such a nominal sum, I have never seen a reliable account of why he did so or what his reasoning was.

 

So we know exactly what happened. We just don't conclusively know why.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Bill said:

 

 

Upon Roger's death in Jan. 1972, Bob Gimlin decided to file a lawsuit to settle the issue of ownership and financial rights to the film. The judge ruled that Bob would receive 51% ownership, plus licensing rights to still pictures and images from the film. Patricia (Roger's widow) would receive 49% ownership, and licensing rights to receive money from any TV or film production that wanted to show the actual film (in motion, as compared to still frames from the film). 

 

 

 

thank you very much, bill!

so bob gimlin did not sue specifically mrs. patterson and al deatly, but rather wanted to solve some copyright/ownership issues that roger patterson's death might cause? like making sure that no uninvolved people could make profit from the movie?

when I read about that lawsuit it sounded like bob gimlin tried to take patricia to court in order to get his money. that would be a whole different situation and him selling his rights for that symbolic amount of money would be even more confusing after that.

 

personally, I think the pgf shows a genuine unknown creature. it's the background story that puzzles me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw recently a show called Sasquatch Oddessy:   The Hunt/ Search for Bigfoot.  I found the first half of this show A+ and the second half a C+.  However, the First half is worth the whole show with some profound good thoughts near the end by the narrator.  This show features 2 primary things making it worth a look:

 

1)  The interviews and briefs interaction between Grover, Rene, Green, (and Peter Byrne).  This is really cool as each person is well thought out in their view and make great points.  Rene is esp entertaining.  Interesting that Rene gets into it a bit with Grover saying how, "You did not go to the sight (Bluff Creek)!"   Grover portrays a scientist who reluctantly has gone where the facts take him and has received some blow back from his willingness to state his opinion in a brave way in his academic circles.

 

2)  A bit of a history lesson in that they go through the 1950's up to the PGF and beyond.  Some of those early days show just how rugged the search would be back then.  Some of that old film when these guys were young is featured.  Makes you see how primitive the well-meaning Slick expedition was and it is featured.  Rene makes it clear the group didn't really have an idea what they were doing back then but did the best they could.  He also makes a point how by talking about Bigfoot as an animal it creates the 'permission' to shoot one which Rene indicated would be sad.  

 

Many youtube level and Netflix level documentaries on Bigfoot can be pretty weak.  However, this one is really good on the first half.   Few are up to the level of America Paranormal: Bigfoot and so on, but its an interesting effort.  

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis
On 12/29/2019 at 8:56 AM, smoove said:

Hi everybody, since I'm a new member I'm not allowed to create topics yet but I have a few questions regarding the pgf. feel free to move my post in case it doesn't belong here. I could not find any topics to that answer my questions.

 

so my question is: what is the exact story of bob gimlin not getting paid and selling his rights to rene dahinden? 

I read a lot about the pgf recently and afaik the story goes like this:

 

gimlin was promised to get 1/3 of all the earnings right after the filming but patterson never paid him (was there any disagreement?). after patterson had died in 1972, gimlin sued al deatley and patterson's wife for the money and won that lawsuit in 1976 (I think that's what greg long says, don't know if it's true though).

he then sold his rights on the film for about 10 dollars to rene dahinden, who previously helped gimlin financially to sue deatley and patricia patterson.

 

is that correct? does the timeline fits? I feel like I don't get the whole story. I always thought that gimlin didn't make any profit from the movie and it seemed odd that he sold his rights for about 10 dollars only to stop dahinden from harassing him any longer.

 

hope you get my questions since I'm not a native speaker.

 

best regards

 

 

On 12/29/2019 at 2:24 PM, Bill said:

Smoove:

 

The facts are as follows:

 

Upon Roger's death in Jan. 1972, Bob Gimlin decided to file a lawsuit to settle the issue of ownership and financial rights to the film. The judge ruled that Bob would receive 51% ownership, plus licensing rights to still pictures and images from the film. Patricia (Roger's widow) would receive 49% ownership, and licensing rights to receive money from any TV or film production that wanted to show the actual film (in motion, as compared to still frames from the film). 

 

Bob did then sell/assign his ownership and licensing rights to Rene Dahinden, reportedly for either $1 or $10(I've heard reports of both numbers, but have not yet verified which myself).

 

As to Bob's motivation to file the suit, and his motivation to sell to Dahinden for such a nominal sum, I have never seen a reliable account of why he did so or what his reasoning was.

 

So we know exactly what happened. We just don't conclusively know why.

 

Bill

 

 

I'm sure some book or web account has this covered but it would take some digging (unless someone here has that detail read at hand).

 

I'm not the expert but my understanding is Bob was always the odd man out.  Even though he was there, it was always Roger's expedition. Bob was basically a hired hand/friend. He didn't film anything or do much other than help with the pack animals and keep his gun handy.  But, when the film was actually captured, it was new ground. Bob didn't seem to care much about it but Roger took the film on the road.  Then Roger got sick and died. Then, over the years when the film got some traction with exposure, Bob realized he was entitled to a share of whatever profits were available. He tried to get in on some of that with agreements and deals, some good and some bad.  

 

It took many years for Bob to get back into bigfootery. So a lot of what he has been doing in his old age is speaking engagements and such. And he has people looking after his interests now since he never had much of a business mentality.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
OldMort

The story changes yet again.

 

Gimlin now claims that they were at Bluff Creek for a month.

 

“After riding for a month, we came across a Bigfoot,” Gimlin said. “I never ever dreamt I’d see one. I was just looking for footprints."

https://www.chinookobserver.com/life/at-squatch-fest-moviemaker-reminds-fans-to-keep-their-eyes/article_709452ce-4445-11ea-9bb8-9f7bb7a1ef3f.html

 

Yeah, I know... 

 

Edited by OldMort
Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Interesting.  Hadn’t heard that he had a second encounter before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

People get old but how many times has he told people his story.   Seems like it would be pretty ingrained by now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
Backdoc
5 hours ago, OldMort said:

The story changes yet again.

 

Gimlin now claims that they were at Bluff Creek for a month.

 

“After riding for a month, we came across a Bigfoot,” Gimlin said. “I never ever dreamt I’d see one. I was just looking for footprints."

 

 


isn’t it basically what Gimlin had said.  About 3 weeks.  A month?   Is this a huge diff really?

 

i thought the actual search was like 3 weeks as a claim in various areas.   1 month might include the generic month of the travel, search, encounter, return, and recovery.   Bob Gimlin talked about it in terms of a “season” as a roofer.   In that way, there was a bout a month left and he “as the low man on the totem pole” would be let go first.   
 

if it was a few weeks or a month, what the diff really esp as told by an seasoned man who is telling the general story as reported by the reporter writing one month.  

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
10 minutes ago, Backdoc said:


isn’t it basically what Gimlin had said.  About 3 weeks.  A month?   Is this a huge diff really?

 

i thought the actual search was like 3 weeks as a claim in various areas.   1 month might include the generic month of the travel, search, encounter, return, and recovery.   Bob Gimlin talked about it in terms of a “season” as a roofer.   In that way, there was a bout a month left and he “as the low man on the totem pole” would be let go first.   
 

if it was a few weeks or a month, what the diff really esp as told by an seasoned man who is telling the general story as reported by the reporter writing one month.  

 

 

Gee, let the skeptics run with that "gaff", Backdoc… ;) ....it's just about all they have, at this point in time.  :haha: 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

^^

You're right, Sweaty. Whether it was 3 weeks or a month, it doesn't change what's on the film. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...