Jump to content
Bodhi

Bob Gimlin Was Interviewed April 16Th On C2C

Recommended Posts

OldMort
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

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 seems to me that if Gimlin has stated that they tracked seven different sasquatches  prior to the Patty filming, there would have been plenty to film other than just broken branches or scuff marks.

 

In order to even identify the presence of at least seven different individuals, surely there must have been more definitive evidence than what has been offered so far.

 

What evidence was Bob going off of to come up with his numerical estimate?

 

They were there for three weeks "riding by day and driving all night" in search of tracks. They tracked seven separate individuals - yet there is zero film documentation of any of this.

 

56 minutes ago, norseman said:

That set up would eat up your saddle bags room probably. Wouldn’t fit in my small ones. 

 

 

That set up was from the 1930's. Cine cameras from the 60's era were typically lighter and more compact.

 

I can't find the actual weight specs for the K-100 but probably in the range of 3 to 5 pounds seems reasonable.

 

Bill? I'm sure you know!

 

Regardless, Patterson had plenty of room in his saddlebag for all his gear on October 20, 1967.

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
6 minutes ago, OldMort said:

 

It seems to me that if Gimlin has stated that they tracked seven different sasquatches  prior to the Patty filming, there would have been plenty to film other than just broken branches or scuff marks.

 

In order to even identify the presence of at least seven different individuals, surely there must have been more definitive evidence than what has been offered so far.

 

What evidence was Bob going off of to come up with his numerical estimate?

 

They were there for three weeks "riding by day and driving all night" in search of tracks. They tracked seven separate individuals - yet there is zero film documentation of any of this.

 

 

That set up was from the 1930's. Cine cameras from the 60's era were typically lighter and more compact.

 

I can't find the actual weight specs for the K-100 but probably in the range of 3 to 5 pounds seems reasonable.

 

Bill? I'm sure you know!

 

Regardless, Patterson had plenty of room in his saddlebag for all his gear on October 20, 1967.

 

There is ZERO documentation for this? How bout the one of the seven individuals walking across the sand bar? And him filming it?

 

And your right! Patterson had what he needed on that day!

 

I cannot help but read between the lines that you feel that the lack of mundane footage negates the film? And yet 750 feet of the 1000 feet of film is mundane...... So?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
38 minutes ago, norseman said:

I cannot help but read between the lines that you feel that the lack of mundane footage negates the film? And yet 750 feet of the 1000 feet of film is mundane...... So?

 

No, the lack of "mundane footage" doesn't negate the PGF film but it does call into question the veracity of Gimlin's account which happens to be the topic of this thread. 

 

Perhaps you're reading between the lines because I'm considered an evil skeptic that asks too many questions.

 

For the record, I'm still on the fence regarding the authenticity of the film subject. I'm here to learn...

 

There are many discussions to be had other than fake/real or exists/doesn't exist.

 

P.S. 75 feet of a 100 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 minute ago, OldMort said:

 

No, the lack of "mundane footage" doesn't negate the PGF film but it does call into question the veracity of Gimlin's account which happens to be the topic of this thread. 

 

Perhaps you're reading between the lines because I'm considered an evil skeptic that asks too many questions.

 

For the record, I'm still on the fence regarding the authenticity of the film subject. I'm here to learn...

 

There are many discussions to be had other than fake/real or exists/doesn't exist.

 

P.S. 75 feet of a 100 feet.

 

I dont hold your skepticism against you. Im just struggling to understand your angle.

 

Yes, sorry. 75 feet.

 

So doesnt that prove they were shooting a majority of the film as you described?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

^^^ My "angle" --

 

a) You are on an expedition whose purpose is to film bigfoot tracks.

 

b) You have "rented" a quality camera for that very purpose and have also purchased "several" rolls of the finest quality film available at that time.

 

c) You have tracked and been able to identify several different individuals belonging to the species that you are searching for.

 

d) You have spent countless hours searching (riding by day and driving by night) with your camera nearby. Makes sense right?

 

e) You are now 3 weeks into your trip and have yet to bust out your camera. Seems odd...

 

f)  You decide that rather than continue "tracking" in your immediate area to instead take a leisurely 35 mile ride to an entirely different area.

 

g) You decide along the way to shoot some unrelated scenic footage of the fall colors and of each other riding horses. You use up 3/4 of your first reel.

 

h) You round a corner and suddenly encounter a bigfoot. You instantly grab your camera because you are always prepared and ready.

 

I) You film the subject as it moves across the sandbar. Despite having just blown 3/4 of your reel, remarkably the film runs out at the exact time as the creature moves off into the distance and is no longer visible. Perfect synchronicity... We are reminded to "stick to what is on the film." Well this is indeed the "raw data" isn't it?

In my opinion, it's equally important to examine what is not on the film and question why not...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
41 minutes ago, OldMort said:

^^^ My "angle" --

 

a) You are on an expedition whose purpose is to film bigfoot tracks.

 

b) You have "rented" a quality camera for that very purpose and have also purchased "several" rolls of the finest quality film available at that time.

 

c) You have tracked and been able to identify several different individuals belonging to the species that you are searching for.

 

d) You have spent countless hours searching (riding by day and driving by night) with your camera nearby. Makes sense right?

 

e) You are now 3 weeks into your trip and have yet to bust out your camera. Seems odd...

 

f)  You decide that rather than continue "tracking" in your immediate area to instead take a leisurely 35 mile ride to an entirely different area.

 

g) You decide along the way to shoot some unrelated scenic footage of the fall colors and of each other riding horses. You use up 3/4 of your first reel.

 

h) You round a corner and suddenly encounter a bigfoot. You instantly grab your camera because you are always prepared and ready.

 

I) You film the subject as it moves across the sandbar. Despite having just blown 3/4 of your reel, remarkably the film runs out at the exact time as the creature moves off into the distance and is no longer visible. Perfect synchronicity... We are reminded to "stick to what is on the film." Well this is indeed the "raw data" isn't it?

In my opinion, it's equally important to examine what is not on the film and question why not...

 

 

 

How do you know the 3/4 reel of the mundane film was shot the same day? How do you know that they never touched the camera for three weeks? Roger said he didn’t know if he filmed the creature because he was bout out of film. Presumably because they were using the film as you described.

 

35 miles is not a leisurely ride with a pack horse.

 

Lets say the film is a complete hoax. Why drive all the way down to bluff creek in the first place? Why not load up the truck and head over to skookum meadows or ape canyon? And why make the hoax within sight of a well used logging road? Your gonna drive all the way down there in a old stock truck and then shoot your “Blair witch project” in a place in which it could be comprised by a logging crew?

 

So much of this is impossible to verify after this amount of time. Bob Gimlin is in his mid 80s. All I can say is that when I met Bob? He was authentic. He isn’t some fake cowboy putting on a act. Could he be pulling the wool over my eyes? Can authentic cowboys pull pranks? Absolutely.

 

Consider this. Most hoaxes we do not know where the film site is. In this case we do. Ivan Marx was busted this way... Do we know the locations of Todd Standings films? No. In the PGF? The film site is right where they said it was. Why?

 

And then of course there is the film subject.....

 

 

 

Share this post


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

How do you know the 3/4 reel of the mundane film was shot the same day?

 

Because Bob sez so. We can also locate exactly where it took place on the way to the sandbar.

 

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

How do you know that they never touched the camera for three weeks?

 

Zero evidence or mention of it ever. If it did exist it would have more than likely surfaced in Patterson's ANE material.

 

8 minutes ago, norseman said:

Roger said he didn’t know if he filmed the creature because he was bout out of film.

 

There was a counter on the camera. It is by no means difficult to check that. He had to be aware that the camera ran for a minute or so. I think he was more concerned with whether or not he had the subject in frame and somewhat in focus.

 

10 minutes ago, norseman said:

35 miles is not a leisurely ride with a pack horse.

 

I wouldn't think so either, Nevertheless that is what Gimlin is telling us. An early afternoon start in late October - 4 or 5 hours of daylight, Is it even doable?

 

Why Bluff Creek? Why reveal the location etc? Probably only Roger Patterson knows the answers to those questions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
7 minutes ago, OldMort said:

 

Because Bob sez so. We can also locate exactly where it took place on the way to the sandbar.

 

 

Zero evidence or mention of it ever. If it did exist it would have more than likely surfaced in Patterson's ANE material.

 

 

There was a counter on the camera. It is by no means difficult to check that. He had to be aware that the camera ran for a minute or so. I think he was more concerned with whether or not he had the subject in frame and somewhat in focus.

 

 

I wouldn't think so either, Nevertheless that is what Gimlin is telling us. An early afternoon start in late October - 4 or 5 hours of daylight, Is it even doable?

 

Why Bluff Creek? Why reveal the location etc? Probably only Roger Patterson knows the answers to those questions...

 

Hell No! The average walking speed of a horse is 3 mph. 35 miles in the mountains on a trail with a loaded pack horse is a sun up to sun down affair. Not unless they took the truck? And unloaded the stock much closer? 

 

Again, Bob is in his mid 80s. I would be careful about how sharp his memory is. We have talked about this before so I won’t go further.

 

Well, it don’t make no sense from a hoaxing standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

I appreciate the debate Norseman.

 

I won't go any further with it either except to conclude that a lot of it "don't make no sense" from any standpoint!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
5 hours ago, OldMort said:

It seems to me that if Gimlin has stated that they tracked seven different sasquatches  prior to the Patty filming, there would have been plenty to film other than just broken branches or scuff marks.

 

In order to even identify the presence of at least seven different individuals, surely there must have been more definitive evidence than what has been offered so far..........

 

I would agree with that to the extent that they at least found singular footprints where length/width could be determined. But singular footprints aren't the kind of thing one would shoot movie footage of. A single photograph would be more appropriate.

 

........

They were there for three weeks "riding by day and driving all night" in search of tracks. They tracked seven separate individuals - yet there is zero film documentation of any of this...........

 

Well, you just wrote the answer to your own question: if they were finding prints in the roads at night, they would need a camera with good flash capabilities. 

 

So is there any mention of having such a camera?

 

3 hours ago, OldMort said:

^^^ My "angle" --

 

a) You are on an expedition whose purpose is to film bigfoot tracks..........

 

That's not my understanding. Patterson was toying with filming a "bigfoot documentary" before that October trip, and was also hoping to catch a bigfoot on film. They went to Bluff Creek on that trip after hearing of some fresh footprint or sighting reports.  Clearly, his sole purpose for the trip wasn't to shoot movie footage of footprints. Again, if they wanted photographic evidence of footprints, they'd bring a camera with flash.

 

........d) You have spent countless hours searching (

riding by day and driving by night) with your camera nearby. Makes sense right?

 

e) You are now 3 weeks into your trip and have yet to bust out your camera. Seems odd...

 

f)  You decide that rather than continue "tracking" in your immediate area to instead take a leisurely 35 mile ride to an entirely different area.

 

g) You decide along the way to shoot some unrelated scenic footage of the fall colors and of each other riding horses. You use up 3/4 of your first reel.

 

h) You round a corner and suddenly encounter a bigfoot.........

 

Sounds like a standard hunting trip to me. They hunted a particular area for three weeks. They've found sign, but haven't gotten a shot. Time's running out. They decide to check out another area on a two day jaunt. "May as well blow off some film at this point.......trips getting close to being over. Maybe I can use some of it for my bigfoot documentary. Hey! Look at that!.........."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort
25 minutes ago, Huntster said:

I would agree with that to the extent that they at least found singular footprints where length/width could be determined. But singular footprints aren't the kind of thing one would shoot movie footage of. A single photograph would be more appropriate.

 

I have always wondered why a movie camera was necessary to film a static object. Easier to share with a large audience perhaps?

 

27 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Well, you just wrote the answer to your own question: if they were finding prints in the roads at night, they would need a camera with good flash capabilities. 

  

So is there any mention of having such a camera?

 

 

Not necessarily. A battery powered spotlight would do the trick or of course the tracks could easily be marked and filmed later during daylight hours.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Huntster said:

That's not my understanding. Patterson was toying with filming a "bigfoot documentary" before that October trip, and was also hoping to catch a bigfoot on film. They went to Bluff Creek on that trip after hearing of some fresh footprint or sighting reports.  Clearly, his sole purpose for the trip wasn't to shoot movie footage of footprints. Again, if they wanted photographic evidence of footprints, they'd bring a camera with flash.

 

For what its worth, here's Chris Murphy's version from The Bigfoot Film Journal:

"At some point in 1965 or 1966 Patterson decided to do a film documentary on bigfoot. He subsequently rented a movie camera in May 1967 for this purpose. He wished to find and film fresh footprints as evidence of the creature's existence."

 

Roger Patterson's radio interview Nov 1967:

"Well first of all, the reason we were in this place was that I'd been filming a documentary on this thing for the past eight months or so and I'd been going to areas interviewing people that had seen these creatures other than myself now, and we went to this particular area because a month before this they had found three different sets of tracks up in that area."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

We look at the Patterson Gimlin expedition like it happened in a vacuum. Who else was doing expeditions down there and what did they find?

 

Is Gimlin’s supposition of seven subjects based on other reports? Is that because Green and Dahinden had found evidence of seven different individuals?

 

Also? If he had been filming a documentary for 8 months? It must mean he was shooting footage else where? I see this all the time in documentaries.... they will be showing you Alaska one moment and then Wyoming the next without really telling you they are no longer in Alaska. Or you see western Larch trees supposedly in Colorado. The producer is picking shots based on production value. Not accuracy.

 

I have little doubt that Mt. Rainer, Mt. Adams and Mt St. Helens had better production value than Bluff creek. Maybe ALL he was looking for where good tracks to film and Bluff creek seemed to be the hotspot? And just planned to cut it into Cascade footage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, norseman said:

I have little doubt that Mt. Rainer, Mt. Adams and Mt St. Helens had better production value than Bluff creek. Maybe ALL he was looking for where good tracks to film and Bluff creek seemed to be the hotspot? And just planned to cut it into Cascade footage

 

I have often wondered why 2 Washington guys would  travel to California for an expedition. I don't think it was to buy Coors beer. ( in the past, you went to Idaho for Coors). Roger and Bob lucked out with the location for a simple reason. Daylight.  Kodachrome was the best film but was very slow. It needed a lot of light. A lot. The flood damage cleared away the forest and the sand / soil reflected a huge amount of light. They could not have used Kodachrome in a dark forest setting under a canopy  at that time of year --- anywhere. Just too dark for Kodachrome.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
3 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

I have often wondered why 2 Washington guys would  travel to California for an expedition. I don't think it was to buy Coors beer. ( in the past, you went to Idaho for Coors)..........

 

Why would 2 Washington guys run to Idaho for Coors when they could easily enjoy Oly or Rainier beer right at home?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
6 hours ago, OldMort said:

.........A battery powered spotlight would do the trick or of course the tracks could easily be marked and filmed later during daylight hours..........

 

True. Back then spotlights mounted on cars was rather popular, especially for the guys who spotlighted game, but it could attract game warden attention. And that was the kind of equipment that added cost quickly. You can't rent those like you could movie cameras (which Patterson had trouble paying for as it was). The lack of money also goes a long way toward explaining why they didn't have a decent still frame camera and flash. Hell, I can't figure out how a guy can afford to feed a barn full of horses. I sure can't do it, or if I did, I wouldn't have money for anything else.

 

Maybe Patterson envisioned shooting movie footage with a trackway like he did after luckily filming the beast itself, showing himself jumping and running around some tracks for his documentary? Then the prints they found were good enough to distinguish size, but nit good enough for movie footage, or were found at night with a lack of lighting because they didn't think to bring lighting?

 

Frankly, I don't think they drove around at night looking for prints. I think they were trying to spook up a creature, knowing they came out at night.

 

6 hours ago, norseman said:

We look at the Patterson Gimlin expedition like it happened in a vacuum. Who else was doing expeditions down there and what did they find?..........

 

There were precious few running around trying to catch a sasquatch back then, and few of them conducted "expeditions" lasting weeks. Dahinden, Titmus, Green..........was about it, no? There may have been a few like Patterson who never got any recognition because they never got anything like he did. Had Patterson never gotten the film, we'd never know about him. 

 

Hell, nobody will ever know about the Huntster. He'll never get anything, and never go on a bigfoot expedition. He's just a Joe Sixpack caribou hunter.

 

..........Is Gimlin’s supposition of seven subjects based on other reports? Is that because Green and Dahinden had found evidence of seven different individuals?........



 

..........I have little doubt that Mt. Rainer, Mt. Adams and Mt St. Helens had better production value than Bluff creek. Maybe ALL he was looking for where good tracks to film and Bluff creek seemed to be the hotspot? And just planned to cut it into Cascade footage?

 

Bluff Creek was a worldwide known hotspot after Jerry Crews in 1958, and regular reports following 1958 kept it in the bigfoot news circle, probably because of expanding timber sales pushing deeper and deeper into the wilderness. I don't remember discussion of seven identified individuals, but I do remember repeated discussion of 15" (Patty?) and 16" or 16.5" prints along with some smaller prints (12"?). 

 

Kinda' reminds me of the recent Ocean Shores series of reports between 2011-2015. If those creatures are still in the area, they've gone deep cover.........or BFRO is going quiet about it after publishing the initial series of reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...