Jump to content

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities?


xspider1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter
6 hours ago, kitakaze said:

 

 

So much for zero deception.

 

I thanked him and hung up. Puzzled, I rechecked my 1962 case file on Robert E. Gimlin. I noted that a William E. Gimlin and a Dola Gimlin, as sureties, had posted a bond for $3000 on behalf of Robert E. Gimlin. Each of their signatures, including that of Robert E. Gimlin, was on the bail bond. Inquisitive, I phoned Lillie Gimlin in Yakima, who I discovered was Bob Gimlin's sister-in-law. I described my book project and that Bob didn't give interviews and that I was trying to discover the indetities of William E. and Dola Gimlin.

 

"They are Bob Gimlin's parents. They are no longer alive."

 

"Thank you." - MoB, p. 423

 

 

What Long writes and what really happened may be two different matters. Gimlin denies having ever been interviewed by Long, so maybe Long can produce proof that he actually spoke to Gimlin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gimlin has denied ever being arrested, suggested some other Robert E. Gimlin. He lies when it is convenient for him.

 

You have just been sent Greg Long's personal contact info.

 

Please post the results of your inquiry to Greg Long regarding your implication he fabricated ever speaking with Gimlin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter
6 hours ago, kitakaze said:

Actually, Gimlin was arrested for stealing.

 

This is from his arrest warrant...

 

ROBERT E. GIMLIN, ELLSWORTH WRIGHT and HOWARD GOODELL on or about December 23, 1961, and December 27, 1961, in Yakima County, Washington, each then and there being, did each then and there knowingly, willfully and feloniously, and with intent to deprive the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away personal property of another, to-wit: plywood, of a value greater than $75, lawful money of the United States of America, the property of Arthur Koch. -MoB, p. 169-170

 

Gimlin's bail was set at $3000. June 11, 1962 Gimlin's lawyer requested a separate trial for Gimlin. October 4, 1962, Gimlin filed a plea of guilty. March 5, 1963, Gimlin filed a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. On March 7, 1963 it was dismissed.

 

 

If Gimlin was arrested, then he should have been photographed and fingerprinted. Bob has said he was not arrested, nor fingerprinted or photographed. Bob was questioned. Bob went in and told the police what they wanted to know. That he went to get several sheets of plywood with Mr. Wright. Bob agrees that he took Wright to pick up the material. That part Bob admitted to right off. What he did not admit to was that he ever knowingly stole or accepted stolen property. An investigation ensued and it was found that Bob had not stolen or knowingly accepted stolen property. Any further pursuit of Bob's guilt was abandoned.

 

When a case comes up in front of a Judge, there is a stenographer who records everything that was said. That case is then part of the public record and can be found through a legal library search. Why didn't Long read for himself exactly what transpired?  Instead Long would only go as far as insinuating Gimlin's guilt and then would move on. Lawyers will often say that one should ask only questions to get the answers they want to hear and not to probe any further for doing so can unravel everything that has been accomplished up to that point.

8 minutes ago, kitakaze said:

Gimlin has denied ever being arrested, suggested some other Robert E. Gimlin. He lies when it is convenient for him.

 

You have just been sent Greg Long's personal contact info.

 

Please post the results of your inquiry to Greg Long regarding your implication he fabricated ever speaking with Gimlin.

 

Post the results of your inquiry to Greg Long and let me know if he recorded his interview with Gimlin. Please post the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Long did not insinuate Gimlin's guilt at all. He reported exactly what the Yakima Superior Court records showed. These are available for public viewing.

 

Gimlin's guilt in the theft of the plywood theft is not the issue.

If the courts were satisfied he did not knowingly accept stolen goods, then that is not the issue. He was represented by Charles Lyon. The Yakima County prosecutor for the case was Lincoln E. Shropshire. The bail bond for $3000 was signed by him personally, his father William E. Gimlin, and his mother Dola Gimlin.

 

The issue was that he baldly lied when asked about the case and suggested some other Robert E. Gimlin.

 

Gimlin lies when it is convenient for him and he feels his character is called into question. He tries to cultivate his salt of the earth persona. 

 

He could have simply clarified to Long the nature of his arrest and the case dismissal.

 

He chose to lie, play dumb, and suggest some other person.

 

So much for zero deception.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter
5 hours ago, kitakaze said:

The issue was that he baldly lied when asked about the case and suggested some other Robert E. Gimlin.

 

Gimlin lies when it is convenient for him and he feels his character is called into question. He tries to cultivate his salt of the earth persona..

 

Did Gimlin lie or did he believe what he said to be true.  (Assuming that Long really did speak to Bob) 

 

To start with - there was no need for Gimlin to lie about this as he had done nothing wrong. So what I am saying is that being arrested is no big deal. I could claim my neighbor just pushed me to the ground and he'd be pulled into jail in short order for assault. It may then be found that an assault really didn't take place and he is then released or the charge against him is dropped.

 

Bail money is paid to the court when you are released and to insure you will not flee. It insures that you will be in court when you are supposed to be. From the record I have read so far is that Gimlin appeared in front of a judge and explained that while he had taken Mr Wright to pick up the sheets of plywood - he did not know that Mr. Wright did not legally take possession of them. Evidence was obviously shown to the court that caused the Judge to dismiss the charges against him. That was 50 years ago and what I am saying is that there is most likely more to Gimlin's response and it is those desperately seeking anything to insinuate that the PGF was a hoax are the one's behind it. Those types are then exposed when they write "Gimlin lies when it is convenient for him". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I believe the whole issue to be nothing, I think you are missing the point that Kit is making.  When asked about this, Gimlins response of it being a different person than himself is an act of deception.  He know what Long was speaking about but deceived him by acting as if it was a different individual.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Bob H. admitted to deceiving Long himself for sure, did he not?  I never met the guy, but from reading the first few pages of his book about the PGf, I would not particularly care if he ever got his facts straight either.   Apparently others were indifferent to the success of his research dirt-digging as well.  Maybe that's why his book is so wrong and so irrelevant.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

Has not Kit already said he is offering no evidence to back up his claims?   He's hoaxed the claim of seeing a suit already.     That's context.   

 

He hasn't provided any links where we can verify his claims.   He hasn't provided any links verifying Long's claims.    All he has provided, basically, is what he asserts is a quote of a quote.   That there, boys 'n' girls, is not good enough considering his earlier recommendation to disregard his claims.  

 

It's just one more distraction to draw attention away from the obvious fact that he's got nothing of substance to refute the film itself with.   

 

So, again, back to the subject of the thread: The film cannot be replicated with a costume.   Statement.    I don't believe it, but even if Bob really stole plywood, how does Kit's innuendo change the fact that the film cannot be replicated with a costume?   

 

Keep your eye on the ball.   It's all about the film.    What alternatives to a costume are there circa Oct 20, 1967 at Bluff Creek?

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter
4 hours ago, Twist said:

While I believe the whole issue to be nothing, I think you are missing the point that Kit is making.  When asked about this, Gimlins response of it being a different person than himself is an act of deception.  He know what Long was speaking about but deceived him by acting as if it was a different individual.  

 

If Bob really spoke to Long and there is no proof of this happening .... Bob's opinion is that if anyone is talking about him stealing anything, then you must be talking about another Robert Gimlin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

... Why didn't Long read for himself exactly what transpired?  Instead Long would only go as far as insinuating Gimlin's guilt and then would move on....

 

 

Assuming this is rhetorical. We know the answer; Long is a yellow journalist, one who never lets the facts get in the way of a good smear. This does not speak well of the acumen, or perhaps even the intellectual integrity, of those who accept his word.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

If Bob really spoke to Long and there is no proof of this happening .... Bob's opinion is that if anyone is talking about him stealing anything, then you must be talking about another Robert Gimlin.

 

You know for a fact what Bob's opinion was? 

 

Come one BFH, you cannot be so obtuse in your thinking that if the situation played out as Long claims ( I know a big IF due to lack of proof )... BUT if the conversation went as Long states, Bob is guilty of deception for whatever reason he felt necessary.  

Edited by Twist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...And if the conversation didn't go as Long states, then he is guilty of libel. Why hasn't Gimlin sued if this conversation was indeed manufactured? These are certainly slanderous allegations, if false.

Edited by OldMort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, Twist said:

 

You know for a fact what Bob's opinion was? 

 

Come one BFH, you cannot be so obtuse in your thinking that if the situation played out as Long claims ( I know a big IF due to lack of proof )... BUT if the conversation went as Long states, Bob is guilty of deception for whatever reason he felt necessary.  

 

I once thought that any deception in a legal case is considered perjury until I found out that the lie had to have an impact on the outcome of the decision. And yes, I know from talking with Gimlin what he believed to be the case concerning the incident of the building materials.

1 hour ago, OldMort said:

...And if the conversation didn't go as Long states, then he is guilty of libel. Why hasn't Gimlin sued if this conversation was indeed manufactured? These are certainly slanderous allegations, if false.

 

This has come up on this forum in the past. One does not have a libel case if he or she cannot show how they were monetarily damaged from the slander. If just lying about something is all it took to get a lawsuit filed - there would be millions of new cases filed in a very short period of time.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
added text
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

I once thought that any deception in a legal case is considered perjury until I found out that the lie had to have an impact on the outcome of the decision. And yes, I know from talking with Gimlin what he believed to be the case concerning the incident of the building materials.

 

This has come up on this forum in the past. One does not have a libel case if he or she cannot show how they were monetarily damaged from the slander. If just lying about something is all it took to get a lawsuit filed - there would be millions of new cases filed in a very short period of time.

 

This was not a legal case, it was a supposed interview, he was deceptive during the interview if it in fact played out as long says.  

 

Do do you have anymore proof of your "talk" with Gimlin to know his opinion than we have of Longs supposed interview?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber pinned this topic
  • masterbarber unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor locked and pinned this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...