Jump to content

Bob Gimlin Was Interviewed April 16Th On C2C


Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
9 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

^^

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

 

 

Sure, Okie....the over-riding evidence, is the evidence contained within the film, itself.  :) 

 

That is a point that I was avoiding making, though.  

 

One thing I was going to add to my post...but then decided not to, was that...I would go with the evidence within the film....since it is much younger than Bob Gimlin is, at this point.

Bob is almost 90....but the film is "only" 52 years old. ;)  

 

(And not only that....Patty doesn't look like she's aged a single day, in the last 50+ years!)

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I've been wondering about how Bill Miller has been/is doing. I haven't seen an update on him, in a few months, or so. 

 

Does anybody know how he is doing?? I hope he has recovered from his illness.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
BC witness

When I last spoke to Thomas about a week ago, he mentioned that Bill was much better, and had been hoping to get back here to BC by the end of this month, but with the current travel bans, that probably isn't happening, and his tour business won't operate this year if social distancing requirements remain in place, which is very likely.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thanks, BC. Glad to hear that great news, about Bill!  :) 

 

 

 

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

Today is the 53rd anniversary of the announcement of the PGF.

 

I came across this video last night that had been posted on YT a few days ago by Les Stroud.

 

The interview with Gimlin appears to have taken place just a few years ago.

 

There are a couple of interesting new tidbits of note, but mainly a rehash of events and then Stroud ego stroking himself.

 

Worth a watch though for diehard PGF fanatics...

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On 10/20/2020 at 12:39 PM, OldMort said:

Today is the 53rd anniversary of the announcement of the PGF.

 

I came across this video last night that had been posted on YT a few days ago by Les Stroud.

 

The interview with Gimlin appears to have taken place just a few years ago.

 

There are a couple of interesting new tidbits of note, but mainly a rehash of events and then Stroud ego stroking himself.

 

Worth a watch though for diehard PGF fanatics...

 

 

 

 

 

-He is extremely convincing when he states, "I was thinking... well I don't know what I was thinking, I just wanted to see it again"  Makes it clear at it was happening he was in a state of shock or disbelief he was really seeing what he was seeing.      <----------    This is the aspect of Bob's interviews which always seem 100% real to me.  I realize it doesn't prove is telling the truth but it sure seems like it.

 

-Interesting point about the horses.  He states reasonably the horses reacted to Patty (surprise?)   He states when he crossed the creek and Roger said, "Cover me" he hoped down and took his gun out.  Then he adds a detail I had not heard where he tied his horse to something on his hip or belt.  In this way, the horse could not get away.  This makes sense as to why under the circumstances he would even be willing to get down off his horse which might run away and leave him stranded or run away before he got his gun.    I always wondered why would he get off his horse and now that makes sense.   After all, the horse was his way out in a hurry and the horse held his gun- a gun he had yet to remove.   This detail makes sense to this city slicker after hearing it.

 

-He states in the interview, "Bill Munns determined Patty was 7'4'' tall".  Bill has since gone back to the position we can't be sure due to yet unproven variables i think (lenses type and size and so on).   BG must be quoting from one of those America Paranormal -type TV shows of a couple years ago I would think.  

 

-Overall, BG seems honest and bright.  He doesn't seem like a guy searching his mind to cover his last lie.   He seems like he could close his eyes and describe the scene as it really happened and he doesn't care anymore if anyone believes him.  He seems to be at peace with the fact he knows what he saw and he just doesn't care anymore if you don't believe him.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

In 2009 (or very late 2008), I thought Patty was about 7' 4" tall, based on an analysis that suggested Roger had a 15mm lens on his camera. Subsequent research, and more film data becoming available to me, revealed the 15mm lens was not a possible option, and that height estimate was abandoned by mid or late 2009.

 

But it seems some things never die on the internet, and analysis later disproven is one of those never-dying curiosities. I've spent years trying to figure out a way to remove that erroneous conclusion from the minds of others, but the challenge is greater than my capacity to overcome it.  So all I can say (over and over) is that the estimate of Patty being 7' 4" is incorrect, an error based on data which was incomplete at the time.

 

Bill

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

In 2009 (or very late 2008), I thought Patty was about 7' 4" tall, based on an analysis that suggested Roger had a 15mm lens on his camera. Subsequent research, and more film data becoming available to me, revealed the 15mm lens was not a possible option, and that height estimate was abandoned by mid or late 2009.

 

But it seems some things never die on the internet, and analysis later disproven is one of those never-dying curiosities. I've spent years trying to figure out a way to remove that erroneous conclusion from the minds of others, but the challenge is greater than my capacity to overcome it.  So all I can say (over and over) is that the estimate of Patty being 7' 4" is incorrect, an error based on data which was incomplete at the time.

 

Bill

 

Thanks Bill.  I didn't want to speak for you.   I was just sure from other reading on the BFF and When Roger Met Patty you no longer felt this was defined with any certainty.   After I watched this Gimlin- Survivorman video, I just wanted to give people the heads up.  Glad you clarified it further.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

-Interesting point about the horses.  He states reasonably the horses reacted to Patty (surprise?)   He states when he crossed the creek and Roger said, "Cover me" he hoped down and took his gun out.  Then he adds a detail I had not heard where he tied his horse to something on his hip or belt.  In this way, the horse could not get away.  This makes sense as to why under the circumstances he would even be willing to get down off his horse which might run away and leave him stranded or run away before he got his gun.    I always wondered why would he get off his horse and now that makes sense.   After all, the horse was his way out in a hurry and the horse held his gun- a gun he had yet to remove.   This detail makes sense to this city slicker after hearing it.

Shooting from horseback is not conducive to accuracy. That could well be another factor.

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

In 2009 (or very late 2008), I thought Patty was about 7' 4" tall, based on an analysis that suggested Roger had a 15mm lens on his camera. Subsequent research, and more film data becoming available to me, revealed the 15mm lens was not a possible option, and that height estimate was abandoned by mid or late 2009.

 

But it seems some things never die on the internet, and analysis later disproven is one of those never-dying curiosities. I've spent years trying to figure out a way to remove that erroneous conclusion from the minds of others, but the challenge is greater than my capacity to overcome it.  So all I can say (over and over) is that the estimate of Patty being 7' 4" is incorrect, an error based on data which was incomplete at the time.

 

Bill

Hey Bill - Thank you for the clarification.  What is your best guess as to Patty's height?  I ask because I have done several analysis based on the footprint and using multiple angles on stills from the video and my best guess is 6' 8" plus or minus about 2 inches.  However, it is very difficult to get a 3D estimate from a 2D set of videos no matter how much geometry and algebra you use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

 

 

4 hours ago, Backdoc said:

He states when he crossed the creek and Roger said, "Cover me" he hoped down and took his gun out.  Then he adds a detail I had not heard where he tied his horse to something on his hip or belt.  In this way, the horse could not get away. 

 

Yes! That was an interesting new detail... I had wondered about the dismounting story since he claims he often hunted while on horseback. 

 

Here's another one that's new to me at least:

 

Bob states that on his birthday (October 18) he told Roger that he would be heading home to Yakima in a few days (October 22). It was at this point that Patterson asked Gimlin if he could come back and get him in November just prior to Thanksgiving. Bob refused of course and they went on their final roundup on the 20th and the rest is history. Previously, the consensus among researchers seemed to be that the aforementioned event occurred later only after the rains came and the ensuing perils that they faced eventually forced their hand.

 

I'm willing to believe Gimlin on this but the whole idea of leaving Patterson behind is dangerously bent. I have to wonder if perhaps Patterson was no longer of a sound mind at this point. Does it make any sense to leave a terminally ill man behind and alone in the wilderness for 4 weeks when winter is very close at hand? It's more than likely that the entire area would have been inaccessible after the first snows which usually come in late October or early November. The roads wouldn't be clear again till late the following Spring. Where and how would Roger shelter from the elements? Was Patterson supposed to ride out and re-supply himself from time to time? If so where? And with what (who's) money? Its telling that Bob told Roger he wouldn't come back and get him in November because his truck used too much gas and he couldn't afford it...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

NCBFr:

 

Right now, I don't have a height estimate because for the process I want to use, there's some kind of error in the data and I need to find the error before I can make a final accurate estimate. But the process of going through all the data to find the error is a formidable task, and I currently don't have the resources to do it. Hopefully sometime soon.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
4 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

 

 

Yes! That was an interesting new detail... I had wondered about the dismounting story since he claims he often hunted while on horseback. 

 

Before this vid I always wondered why Gimlin might take the chance to get off his horse since it might run away taking his gun and escape method with it.  it seems this ability to tie off the horse to something on his belt would finally explain to me why he wasn't fearful his horse would take off if he got off.

 

4 hours ago, OldMort said:

Here's another one that's new to me at least:

 

Bob states that on his birthday (October 18) he told Roger that he would be heading home to Yakima in a few days (October 22). It was at this point that Patterson asked Gimlin if he could come back and get him in November just prior to Thanksgiving. Bob refused of course and they went on their final roundup on the 20th and the rest is history. Previously, the consensus among researchers seemed to be that the aforementioned event occurred later only after the rains came and the ensuing perils that they faced eventually forced their hand.

 

I'm willing to believe Gimlin on this but the whole idea of leaving Patterson behind is dangerously bent. I have to wonder if perhaps Patterson was no longer of a sound mind at this point. Does it make any sense to leave a terminally ill man behind and alone in the wilderness for 4 weeks when winter is very close at hand?

 

 

 

I just got the impression Gimlin was needing to get back to Yakima after 2-3 weeks of joy riding in the woods on horseback with his friend.  He was just making it clear to his friend he was about done.  Therefore he was just relating to my thinking more tongue-in-cheek to Roger he would have to leave him there.   That was how I read it.  I'll admit I could have that wrong.

Thanks for posting the video.

 

 

4 hours ago, OldMort said:

 

It's more than likely that the entire area would have been inaccessible after the first snows which usually come in late October or early November. The roads wouldn't be clear again till late the following Spring. Where and how would Roger shelter from the elements? Was Patterson supposed to ride out and re-supply himself from time to time? If so where? And with what (who's) money? Its telling that Bob told Roger he wouldn't come back and get him in November because his truck used too much gas and he couldn't afford it...

 

 

 

I have to think with the rigors of a lot of horseback riding Roger must have been stable or in remission with his cancer (whatever type that might be).    Also, going back to my previous thought, I don't really think Bob was saying he was leaving him there.   As far as intentions to go back, that might have been in his heart but not in his time budget or money budget.   After they struck gold in the PGF lucky event (if they really did) Roger did not in fact go back.  Don't know what it means but it seems to be the case.   On the Gas issue, it seems like Gimlin is relating a story where he may really be relating what he told Roger in general but deeper down he was just spent and was not coming back.   The rode for weeks. They saw tracks which were expired.  He was ready to get back in his own bed.   I don't read that much into the rest of it.   

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