Jump to content
Bodhi

Bob Gimlin Was Interviewed April 16Th On C2C

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter

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

 

But yet you infer Gimlin is a hoaxer .... maybe take a moment to come up with something to say that doesn't contradict something else you have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

To the skeptics out there:

 

What is the most compelling thing you want me to notice when I listen to the Gimlin audio on C2C.  Please let me know and I can perk up my ears.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bodhi

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

Norse,

Have you listened to the interview? It's really good, I think you'll enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bodhi

 

 

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. 

 

Well, I just suggest you listen to the interview. patterson dictated much and held gimlin back from pursuing the subject of the film. And, when the rain was coming down in buckets patterson, according to gimlin, was not the least inclined to get out in the rain and protect the evidence (trackway, prints). Seems a little strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bodhi

To the skeptics out there:

 

What is the most compelling thing you want me to notice when I listen to the Gimlin audio on C2C.  Please let me know and I can perk up my ears.

 

BD

BD,

 

I suggest that you listen to:

How patterson directs the movement of the two men during the days prior to filming the subject

How patterson stops gimlin from going after the filmed subject by claiming he "thought" there might be more sasquatches on the hill although he hadn't seen or heard anything to give him reason to think this.

How patterson does nothing to protect the trackway, prints from the storm whilst gimlin, who I believe was the dupe in this thing, is compelled to go out in the driving rain to attempt to protect the tracks with bark and pine boughs.

Listen to how gimlin describes patterson behavior before and after with this in mind and let me know you thoughts. Thanks for asking about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

About Patterson and he bucketsof rain .... When did Gimlin say that - at some point in his 80s? 

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 

To the skeptics out there:

 

What is the most compelling thing you want me to notice when I listen to the Gimlin audio on C2C.  Please let me know and I can perk up my ears.

 

BD

BD,

 

I suggest that you listen to:

How patterson directs the movement of the two men during the days prior to filming the subject

How patterson stops gimlin from going after the filmed subject by claiming he "thought" there might be more sasquatches on the hill although he hadn't seen or heard anything to give him reason to think this.

How patterson does nothing to protect the trackway, prints from the storm whilst gimlin, who I believe was the dupe in this thing, is compelled to go out in the driving rain to attempt to protect the tracks with bark and pine boughs.

Listen to how gimlin describes patterson behavior before and after with this in mind and let me know you thoughts. Thanks for asking about that.

 

 

Nonsense .... what good would it do to direct where they go on days when there was no subject to hoax. It seems the only day to direct someone would be if that was D-day so-to-speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

BD,

 

I suggest that you listen to:

How patterson directs the movement of the two men during the days prior to filming the subject

How patterson stops gimlin from going after the filmed subject by claiming he "thought" there might be more sasquatches on the hill although he hadn't seen or heard anything to give him reason to think this.

How patterson does nothing to protect the trackway, prints from the storm whilst gimlin, who I believe was the dupe in this thing, is compelled to go out in the driving rain to attempt to protect the tracks with bark and pine boughs.

Listen to how gimlin describes patterson behavior before and after with this in mind and let me know you thoughts. Thanks for asking about that.

 

 

 

Bob Gimlin could not possibly have been hoaxed. 

 

The reason why is because of the trackway, at the scene. If the film is a hoax, then the trackway must have been faked. A man wearing fake feet could not possibly have made such deep, and well-defined footprints. 

 

And Bob Gimlin would have been well aware of the trackway being faked. Therefore, he could not have been hoaxed. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Right you are, SweatyYeti. And where did Martin get the information that Patterson called Gimlin back because he thought there were Sasquatch on the hill? Is this Martin re-writing history?  I have only ever read that Patterson was only concerned that there had been several sized tracks found in the area recently and didn't want to be caught on foot without his horse and/or a way of protecting himself as to why Roger called Gimlin back. This all makes me wonder if it is just me or does there seem to be a modus-operandi being used by certain skeptics to add details to the Bluff Creek encounter that they are just making up. I mean anyone can remember something incorrectly, but it seems to happen somewhat often these days and always with a theme that something fishy had gone on.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

 

Regarding Titmus: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/more-titmus.htm

 

Byrne, Dahinden and Slick claimed Titmus was a fraud.

 

Sanderson suspected that he faked evidence with moose hair.

 

Byrne on Titmus as corroborated by Gerry Crew, Steve Matthes, Red Mathis and Red Mathis wife:

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/byrne_on_titmus.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Doesnt sound like someone to be trusted

 

There is much to the story that has been left out, but consider the source. Bobby Short was a Peter Byrne fan - Dahinden, Green, and Titmus didn't care for Peter and felt he was taking advantage of Slick. Green has said that Titmus felt there were a couple of guys working for Slick that were frauds. The Moose hair was a way of finding out if these guys really knew the difference. Of course when Byrne found out about - the spinning of the tale began. In the end, Slick and Titmus remained on good terms as it was Tom who asked Titmus to investigate in BC. Slick did not pay Titmus - Bob took up driving a cab to fund his work in BC.

 

Peter ended up being caught in  several fraudulent claims from Track-way finds to SS Fraud.

 

 

Byrne's claims regarding Titmus are supported by witnesses.

 

Green has worked hard to rehabilitate Titmus poor reputation. 

 

Titmus was never a skilled investigator. He didn't even take a tape measure to "lay out" the pgf film site.

 

Titmus got caught hoaxing with moose hair...... Now you are claiming it was a test all along. WOW. 

 

Titmus says " Hey Tom, look what I found... some sasquatch hair.... can I get another check?"

 

Tom says " Hey Titmus, turns out that's moose hair and there are no moose in this state?"

 

Titmus says " I was just protecting you from these crooks.... Hey, I found where bigfoot goes to poop."

 

Why would Slick pay Titmus after the moose hoax and the pony poop fiasco.?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

^^

 

Right you are, SweatyYeti. And where did Martin get the information that Patterson called Gimlin back because he thought there were Sasquatch on the hill? Is this Martin re-writing history? 

 

Show me where I said that or take it down please.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^ 

 

Oh that is right, Martin  .... That was a different skeptic (Bodhi) that said that and your silly comment was to ask if the letter Titmus wrote to Green about the film site was done on Green's typewriter despite Titmus writing Green a hand written letter that was mailed from California. While Crowlogic claims Patty's toe lines don't match when he doesn't rotate two cast to match on the vertical plane. Get where I am going about keeping things straight and needlessly spreading misinformation. You guys don't like it when it happens with your name attached to it, but its ok if its directed at Green - Titmus - Gimlin - or Patterson.

 

And so you know ... Titmus made Green aware of his plan to show that the expert hunters were feeding Slick a plate of BS before the deed was done. When I see John again and if his files with the Titmus letters are not in storage - I will see if I can scan it so to post it. And by the way and someone can correct me if I am wrong, but would not that be the same two expert hunters that claimed they saw the creature if my memory is correct. So which is it, Martin ... they really saw the Bigfoot and reported it to Slick or they were feeding Slick a line of BS in your view?

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Quick impressions (with more to come) after listening to the Coast to Coast interview with Gimlin. 

 

Issue:  "Full Moon"

 

 

 

Gimlin stated after the event and going to Al's store they went back to the camp site later that night it was a "full moon or bright moon".

 

Checking the online records, this is what is listed in the month of Oct 1967 moon phases:

 

1967 Full Moon  Oct. 18 and Oct 19th.  Coverage on the 18th was 100% Coverage; 99% full moon on 19th, and on the 20th was 97% covered.

 

As we can see, it was a near full moon as Gimlin's recollection on Oct 20th 1967.  That is supportive of the memory of Gimlin and very easy story he tells in this interview.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bodhi

^^

 

About Patterson and he bucketsof rain .... When did Gimlin say that - at some point in his 80s? 

Seriously? Are you now claiming that gimlin is too infirm to remember? Does that go for the entire event or just the portions of his story with which you disagree? Wow, just the definition of special pleading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bodhi

 

 

To the skeptics out there:

 

What is the most compelling thing you want me to notice when I listen to the Gimlin audio on C2C.  Please let me know and I can perk up my ears.

 

BD

BD,

 

I suggest that you listen to:

How patterson directs the movement of the two men during the days prior to filming the subject

How patterson stops gimlin from going after the filmed subject by claiming he "thought" there might be more sasquatches on the hill although he hadn't seen or heard anything to give him reason to think this.

How patterson does nothing to protect the trackway, prints from the storm whilst gimlin, who I believe was the dupe in this thing, is compelled to go out in the driving rain to attempt to protect the tracks with bark and pine boughs.

Listen to how gimlin describes patterson behavior before and after with this in mind and let me know you thoughts. Thanks for asking about that.

 

 

Nonsense .... what good would it do to direct where they go on days when there was no subject to hoax. It seems the only day to direct someone would be if that was D-day so-to-speak.

 

1) I was answering a direct question to another member. It had zero to do with you or your opinion of what is nonsense.

 

2) It's not nonsense, it's a fact that patterson was leading gimlin, literally, around in circles for a couple of days prior to filming the subject. Gimlin states as much in the interview. If you can't comprehend how this might lead to set up, I think you might be being willfully ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...