Jump to content
Bodhi

Bob Gimlin Was Interviewed April 16Th On C2C

Recommended Posts

Bodhi

 

 

 

dude, I just listened to the interview. I just heard the guy say what I wrote above. You might want to do that yourself before writing that I'm wrong. Where you get the temerity to correct me on something you haven't heard I do not know but wow.

 

I see what Bob has done ... it appears that age may have played a part in his description of Roger's remarks as he has told it for many years like he did to John Green a quarter of a Century earlier ...

Gimlin%20rain_zpsa4ae3gvn.jpg

 

The guy is a natural born story teller. I don't believe in sasquatch for a second but I thoroughly enjoyed the interview, although near the end it sorta' sounded like he was "hitting" on the interviewer which creeped my out a little. Still though, it was great radio.

 

I still haven't listened to the matt johnson part and probably will not because I don't believe anything that comes out the guy's mouth.

 

 

The Interviewer was John Green and you are the first person who has ever said that Gimlin seemed to be hitting on Green, which has now creep-ed me out. Green is a member here, so maybe keep your uniformed "creep" views to yourself.

 

The interviewer was the female host of Coast 2 Coast, as per the Topic Of This Thread. So, I'll accept your apology now. And maybe in the future get the facts before being a jerk.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

If I went to map things out after the bluff creek encounter news hit, I would bring a camera to the site with several rolls of film.

Drawing a map of the sit is valuable. I should think Titmus could buy a roll of film and barrow a camera if he didn't own one. A camera is better. Why didn't he bring a camera or did he?

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 

 

 

 

dude, I just listened to the interview. I just heard the guy say what I wrote above. You might want to do that yourself before writing that I'm wrong. Where you get the temerity to correct me on something you haven't heard I do not know but wow.

 

I see what Bob has done ... it appears that age may have played a part in his description of Roger's remarks as he has told it for many years like he did to John Green a quarter of a Century earlier ...

Gimlin%20rain_zpsa4ae3gvn.jpg

 

The guy is a natural born story teller. I don't believe in sasquatch for a second but I thoroughly enjoyed the interview, although near the end it sorta' sounded like he was "hitting" on the interviewer which creeped my out a little. Still though, it was great radio.

 

I still haven't listened to the matt johnson part and probably will not because I don't believe anything that comes out the guy's mouth.

 

 

The Interviewer was John Green and you are the first person who has ever said that Gimlin seemed to be hitting on Green, which has now creep-ed me out. Green is a member here, so maybe keep your uniformed "creep" views to yourself.

 

The interviewer was the female host of Coast 2 Coast, as per the Topic Of This Thread. So, I'll accept your apology now. And maybe in the future get the facts before being a jerk.

 

 

 Sorry - your response was under the Green / Gimlin interview I posted which I thought you were commenting on. Glad you didn't go so far off the deep end yet. And one is hardly a jerk if they believed you made that comment about Green and Gimlin.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Why didn't he bring a camera?

 

Good line of questioning.

 

 

keep er going...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Titmus?  This was mentioned in another thread. Bob was visiting his parents and did not have a camera with him. I visited my parents and didn't take a camera with me unless it was a special occasion. The learning about the film happened to Bob AFTER he had already been visiting his folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

He must have felt knowing some creature had already been claimed to have been captured on film, he just wanted to see the site of encounter for himself.  Was the mapping somewhat after the fact or was that his intent before he set off for the site?   

 

 

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

If I went to map things out after the bluff creek encounter news hit, I would bring a camera to the site with several rolls of film.

Drawing a map of the sit is valuable. I should think Titmus could buy a roll of film and barrow a camera if he didn't own one. A camera is better. Why didn't he bring a camera or did he?

BD

Indeed and Patterson is said to have had both still camera and the K-100 16mm.  But what do they do?  They run the K-100 and not a single still camera photo has ever emerged from P&G's expedition.  Those guys were not rocket scientists.  Likely Dehinden was the sharpest tool in the shed of them. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

Indeed and Patterson is said to have had both still camera and the K-100 16mm.  But what do they do?  They run the K-100 and not a single still camera photo has ever emerged from P&G's expedition.  Those guys were not rocket scientists.  Likely Dehinden was the sharpest tool in the shed of them. 

 

 

 

 

If Roger filmed the things he filmed with the second roll of film it seems the still camera at that point becomes trading in your iPod for an 8 track player.

 

Roger had just captured on film (!) bigfoot in his mind.  Had you done so you would have felt that was more than enough.  Furthermore, if it can be believed he took the film of the tracks and stomp test on the second reel, that is more than enough.  On top of that, they took plaster prints of some of the tracks.  Gimlin attempted to lay bark over some of the prints.  They told others the site of the encounter.  Others showed up and found traces of what he has said just occurred.  If a person believes these things occurred, a still camera would be the last thing on the minds of Roger and Bob.

 

Why didn't McClarin take a still camera to the site in the following spring/summer and photograph the pathway (or the plaster outline) before he did the walk.

 

The why thing can go all day. I am curious about Titmus not bringing a camera and why that was.  That is all.

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 

If I went to map things out after the bluff creek encounter news hit, I would bring a camera to the site with several rolls of film.

Drawing a map of the sit is valuable. I should think Titmus could buy a roll of film and barrow a camera if he didn't own one. A camera is better. Why didn't he bring a camera or did he?

BD

 

Indeed and Patterson is said to have had both still camera and the K-100 16mm.  But what do they do?  They run the K-100 and not a single still camera photo has ever emerged from P&G's expedition.  Those guys were not rocket scientists.  Likely Dehinden was the sharpest tool in the shed of them. 

 

I do not know of any still photos that Patterson took on that particular trip. Did someone merely say Patterson owned a still camera or that he actually had it in Bluff Creek?  And if so, who was that person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^^

Crow indicated it by saying "is said to have" a camera with him. I am curious who said it.

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Seems that Crowlogic should have no problem disclosing his source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I've met Bob Gimlin, he is salt of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

^I can fully understand Bob not wishing to tarnish his long dead friend Roger.  Stand up folks are like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BC witness

 

I've met Bob Gimlin, he is salt of the earth.

 

Exactly my take after spending a few hours in his company, too. He has a wry sense of humour, and a way of downplaying a description of events, rather than exagerating them. I felt like a long time friend, after just one afternoon in his company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

 

For me, it's a huge red flag that titmus failed to bring anything like that and seems to defeat the purpose of such a difficult journey.

 

So let me ask you a question. Say you are titmus, the first one to go back to the site since the subject was filmed. You have to pack in and your stated purpose for going is to map the site. Would you, using your own reasoning skills, bring something with which to measure (ruler, tape measurer)?

 

 

Titmus drew a map ... to know why Bob didn't measure off the site is to understand his purpose for going there.

 

As far as the journey being difficult - it wasn't. Laverty and Crew did it. Henry and McClarin did it. None of them reported any difficulty in getting there or having to pack anything in.

 

 

That's not exactly the kind of spot you would think someone would pick in which to film a hoax. Common sense would tell someone to choose a more remote spot where there's much less chance of someone seeing them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...