Jump to content
Bodhi

Bob Gimlin Was Interviewed April 16Th On C2C

Recommended Posts

Redbone
3 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

If this is so, it saddens me considerably.

enjoy the video... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis

^ I was trying to avoid posting that. It's long and painful. There is other stuff as well, conference appearances and get togethers. I think Bob just likes helping and being a resource to lots of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
Posted (edited)

So, according to Thom Cantrall, in his own words: "Bob (Gimlin) told me they had been tracking about 7 above and followed 3 down into the creek bottom."

 

I have to wonder about the context of this statement. Gimlin can't possibly be referring to October 20th since they were already at the creek bottom, and don't appear to be tracking anything that morning, instead taking turns with the camera whilst enjoying the beautiful fall foliage.

Their plans for that day (according to Gimlin) were to ride out to an area some 30 or 35 miles in distance from their camp for a possible overnighter.

 

If what Gimlin states is in reference to the preceding days and they had indeed been tracking seven sasquatches, where is the film evidence of their "tracking"?

After all, wasn't that their stated purpose in being there: To film the Bluff Creek tracks for Patterson's documentary?

Yet, we have zero film evidence from anytime prior to the "Big Day" despite plenty of earlier opportunities for Patterson to already have completed his stated mission.

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

So, according to Thom Cantrall, in his own words: "Bob (Gimlin) told me they had been tracking about 7 above and followed 3 down into the creek bottom."

 

I have to wonder about the context of this statement. Gimlin can't possibly be referring to October 20th since they were already at the creek bottom, and don't appear to be tracking anything that morning, instead taking turns with the camera whilst enjoying the beautiful fall foliage.

Their plans for that day (according to Gimlin) were to ride out to an area some 30 or 35 miles in distance from their camp for a possible overnighter.

 

If what Gimlin states is in reference to the preceding days and they had indeed been tracking seven sasquatches, where is the film evidence of their "tracking"?

After all, wasn't that their stated purpose in being there: To film the Bluff Creek tracks for Patterson's documentary?

Yet, we have zero film evidence from anytime prior to the "Big Day" despite plenty of earlier opportunities for Patterson to already have completed his stated mission.

 

 

 

Not all tracking is going to give you crisp and clear tracks. You might be following scuffs in pine duff. Or a couple of toe prints. Or maybe even broken branches or shine on grass.

 

So the question is, if they filmed a track way in a forest above Bluff creek? Would you even know what you were looking at? 

 

When I go out looking for tracks I go to muddy wet places that hold a good track. I might be able to follow it from there. But to just look at a scuff in pine duff and say definitively “thats Bigfoot”! Pretty tall order.

 

Snow would be the best way to track one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
Posted (edited)

Agreed, but if you are shooting a documentary and have been on location for a few weeks already and have zero footage, wouldn't the documentary maker at some point shoot footage of the tracking process at least? Perhaps they hadn't come across a perfect print but they certainly could have filmed stuff like Gimlin hunching over examining "scuff in pinebrush" or "broken branches... etc"?

 

They also could have filmed some of the area where tracks had previously been reported nearby recently or shown what the degraded tracks on the BCM road looked like.

 

Instead we have nothing.

 

Barring Patty's surprise appearance, the two minutes of scenic shots they came up with that final day would have made for quite an anticlimactic finale for three weeks of work in the wild.

Edited by OldMort
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On 7/6/2019 at 6:30 PM, OldMort said:

Agreed, but if you are shooting a documentary and have been on location for a few weeks already and have zero footage, wouldn't the documentary maker at some point shoot footage of the tracking process at least? Perhaps they hadn't come across a perfect print but they certainly could have filmed stuff like Gimlin hunching over examining "scuff in pinebrush" or "broken branches... etc"?

 

They also could have filmed some of the area where tracks had previously been reported nearby recently or shown what the degraded tracks on the BCM road looked like.

 

Instead we have nothing.

 

Barring Patty's surprise appearance, the two minutes of scenic shots they came up with that final day would have made for quite an anticlimactic finale for three weeks of work in the wild.

 

I like this post OM.  Interesting take.

 

I doubt Bob Gimlin cared one way or the other what Roger filmed. He was there to see tracks for himself but mainly to go riding.  If I am right then it means we have to think through the eyes of Roger to come up with guesses.

 

It is possible Roger looked at this film he took in the context of how this fit into some sort of documentary or something.  That might explain the panning nature scenes.  He did have more than one roll of film.  Maybe they came across so little impressive evidence there was nothing to film.  They may have wanted to film something.   Bent twigs don't appear impressive so why film them? 

 

It does seem Roger devoted too much of the nature stuff, nearly 75% of a single roll of film?

 

Interesting take on things.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

It does seem Roger devoted too much of the nature stuff, nearly 75% of a single roll of film?

 

Interesting take on things.

 

 

Roger did exactly the right thing, Backdoc. 

 

It is the film bearing his name that is a unique, one-of-a-kind piece of film footage....which is still being discussed, debated and analyzed...only 51 years later.  ;)  

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis

Roger wasn't a skilled filmmaker. He had a shoestring budget and limited tools. Anyone who has ever filmed with super 8 and 16mm would know, you set out with the best of intentions to realize your vision but reality hits you quick. Film runs out and you end up with choppy cuts and panning around aimlessly. 

 

Anyone remember home movies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
On 7/6/2019 at 4:30 PM, OldMort said:

Agreed, but if you are shooting a documentary and have been on location for a few weeks already and have zero footage, wouldn't the documentary maker at some point shoot footage of the tracking process at least? Perhaps they hadn't come across a perfect print but they certainly could have filmed stuff like Gimlin hunching over examining "scuff in pinebrush" or "broken branches... etc"?

 

They also could have filmed some of the area where tracks had previously been reported nearby recently or shown what the degraded tracks on the BCM road looked like.

 

Instead we have nothing.

 

Barring Patty's surprise appearance, the two minutes of scenic shots they came up with that final day would have made for quite an anticlimactic finale for three weeks of work in the wild.

 

Have you ever packed stock? 

 

Space and weight is limited. One pack horse supporting two men and two horses. That’s traveling light. So is taking a single cab stock truck to California. Stock, Wall tent, stove, cots, sleeping bags, horse feed, food, saddles, pack saddle, panniers, lanterns, saw, axe, shovel, etc, etc. Plus a camera and some film? Tall order.

 

I think they went in looking to film GOOD tracks. I don’t think they had enough film to shoot a 3 week expedition. If you shot 4 hours a day for 21 days? How many feet of film is that? 

 

And what if they had shot all or most of the film up filming mountains and trees? And then encountered Patty? We may not have any film note worthy at all? 

 

I wasnt there. And I’m a generation behind. The packing game hasn’t changed a bit in 100 years. But a modern diesel pickup and a big horse trailer? Big difference. Gopros, drones and SD cards? Light years difference. I could document a three week pack trip today. No sweat. But I would need 2 pack horses or mules to support me and my saddle mount. Feed is a BIG issue. Is there meadows I can hobble and graze my stock? Or do I need to pack enough groceries for 3 - 1200 lbs animals for the whole trip? 

 

How many canisters of film can I take in there? Roger supposedly was packing the camera gear in his saddle bags. That’s were traditionally a packer puts his sensitive, high value, quick access items. So it makes sense. It’s also a very limited spot for gear. Packing a lot of weight across yer horses kidneys is a bad idea. It’s also hard to mount and dismount. With that said? Putting stuff in the panniers of the pack horse is how stuff gets broke. Pack horses whack trees with panniers, they don’t follow the lead rope and get wrapped around trees or refuse to cross creeks and end up upside down in them. I didn’t read this somewhere, I have lived it. Packing extra camera gear on the pack horse? I wouldn’t do it. Unless it’s in a plastic foam case.

 

Just some food fer thought?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
27 minutes ago, norseman said:

I don’t think they had enough film to shoot a 3 week expedition

 

Roger had two rolls. Each lasted just 4 minutes at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
Just now, hiflier said:

 

Roger had two rolls. Each lasted just 4 minutes at best.

 

 How big is a roll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

Roger did exactly the right thing, Backdoc. 

 

It is the film bearing his name that is a unique, one-of-a-kind piece of film footage....which is still being discussed, debated and analyzed...only 51 years later.  ;)  

 

 

 

Well, he did the right thing beyond dispute no matter how he did it so long as he successfully caught Bigfoot on film.  That alone justifies everything he did filming, or any other decision which lead to success. 🐵

 

I was responding in the context of OM post.  That is, what should or shouldn't we expect (or assume we should expect) about Roger's filming pre-Patty.  It's more of a hypothetical discussion since no one really knows what should be on a film if it is authentic or if it is a hoax.

 

There is not a photo taken or a 10 sec film effort of the tracks which lured them down to begin with.  Even if they were ruined, should there be?  I can make a case they should have filmed them anyway briefly and it would be expected to be the first or one of the first things on reel #1.  I can also understand why there is no film of it.

 

If they had 2 rolls of film they used 75% of one roll on things non bigfoot.  No tracks, no scuff marks, scat, broken limbs, and so on.

 

It is just something to think about and consider.

 

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis
49 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

 How big is a roll?

Depends what he bought. Film came in various lengths. I recall on the tip of memory the cheapest was like 3.5 minutes. A step up was 8 minutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

Roger had two rolls. Each lasted just 4 minutes at best.

 

True. At 16 frames per second, 100 feet of 16mm film will run for a calculated 4:10 min.

At 18 fps, 3:42 min.

At 24 fps, 2:46 min.

The run time is short but keep in mind that the rule of thumb was / is scene length is 15 seconds. ( excludes original Man from U.N.C.L.E.  TV show segway pans )

Debate exists on the frame rate. You would loose a short amount of usable film on the beginning and end of the daylight reel due to sunlight during handling.

I thought that these details were covered long ago.

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

 How big is a roll?

 

100 feet of film for daylight load reel. Film reels are smaller than projector reels.

 

51 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Wrong camera ^.  The K100 was built like a tank. Designed and built to film football games. It is heavy. Not a run-and-gun camera. I put a nickel below the film speed dial for size comparison. It is easy to bump the film speed dial during handling ( panic mode ). The image does not have the lens / turret.

Kodak k100 turret IMG_3271.JPG

Edited by Catmandoo
more text
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...