Jump to content

Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin Interview (Oct 26, 1967)


Incorrigible1

Recommended Posts

Incorrigible1
BFF Donor

On October 26, 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were interviewed on radio by Jack Webster in Vancouver, following the showing of the Patterson-Gimlin film at the University of British Columbia that same evening. Fortunately, John Green had a copy of the interview in his cassette tape collection. He graciously permitted me to make a copy of the recording and all of his other cassette recordings as well. These will later be added to this channel. Until now, and after a long 53 years, the interview had not been made public. The significance of the Patterson-Gimlin interview is quite profound, because it’s a then current snapshot of the men’s recollection of the afternoon of October 20, 1967. The audio is a bit inconsistent at the beginning but, gets better soon into the interview.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Thanks for this. Jack Webster was quite an incredible and well-known journalist in British Columbia, and also pretty well known in the rest of Canada as well. Now I will go and listen to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Great interview, with a caveat that Webster, the interviewer, was not nearly as good as his old reputation suggests. He talked all over them. On the other hand, he did listen, and showed no dismissal or scoffing. He was known to be opinionated, blunt and hard-nosed.

Both Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin came across as intelligent and well-spoken guys, telling what should be a very compelling story, to those who are open-minded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
BFF Donor

Gimlin states he was toting a .30-06 rifle. Does anyone have scoop on the brand/model he was carrying?

Link to post
Share on other sites
BC witness

Jack Webster, because of his tenacious questioning of politicians, was known as the "Oatmeal Savage". I thought this was a very good interview, as Jack had obviously done his homework by watching the film, and asking very relevant questions. Thomas Steenburg has a copy of that tape, but has never used it publicly, or shared it online.

A couple of years ago, I had the pleasure of sitting across a table from Bob Gimlin over a meal with John Green, and a number of other research notables, and listening to virtually the same account direct from the horse's mouth, as the saying goes.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed the interview, listened with earbuds from my phone and had no problem understanding any of the dialogue. I thought Jack Webster did a creditable job, loved his Scot's Burr. Wish we had a few dozen like him in today's media. The back and forth between Roger and Bob was informative. Chuckled when Webster was questioning Roger about how he could afford to take time off for the expedition. Roger was honest with his answer. Definitely will listen a few more times. Thanks for posting it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor

 

The whole interview feels organic to me and not rehearsed.  It doesn't feel in any way these are two guys who are trying to get their story straight.

 

There where even two points where Roger and Bob disagree. One is on arm length in a minor way and the other is when Roger thinks they were closest initially with Patty while Bob thinks they were closest when they crossed the creek.  The Questioner here talks so fast it's as if there is not enough time to think up a lie.  I get the impression at least these two believe what they saw.  

 

Thanks for posting.

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

I second what @Backdoc says. If people new to subject listen, they are likely to believe P & G and appreciate Webster’s blunt style, like I do. Unfortunately so many commentators — and Heironimous’s “confession” — have come afterwards and muddied the waters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This interview recording was transcribed by Bobbie Short, and she provided me a copy, which I compared to the footage we know of, to see if the interview remarks were consistent with the fact of what's on film. Below are specific sections of the interview and (in bold) my comparison with the film data. Everything validates the remarks made by Roger and Bob as being truthful.

 

INTERVIEW SECTIONS HAVE AN INITIAL AND COLON BEFORE THE REMARKS

ANALYSIS SECTIONS HAVE A NUMBER STARTING THE SENTENCE OR PARAGRAPH

 

Comparing remarks of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin from a radio interview in 1967 transcribed by Bobbie Short and located on her website:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm


The interview as posted on Bobbie's website did not allow me to copy/paste text from it, so Bobbie kindly did a text transcription of it, and I am working from that text transcription she provided, in the word document where I have taken excerpts.

 

 

Now Roger, what took you to that place, and precisely where was it, and why did you go there?

Roger: Well first of all, the reason that 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 have 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.


1. " I'd been filming a documentary on this thing for the past eight months or so. . . "

Eight months ago would have been late winter, based on interview date, and Roger has one full 100' reel of documentary footage of heavy winter snow scenery. It is Segment 5 described here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=44f00517aaa12a26cc12bc058174365e&showtopic=29177

 

2. "I'd been going to areas interviewing people that have seen these creatures, . . "

Segment 3 of the same documentary footage reel shows Fred Beck, a man who had a described experience and who is also in Roger's book. So Roger is filming at least one such person, as described.


W: Now come back to yourself, first of all you showed some routine film of your packhorses, didn't you?

3. Packhorse footage is well documented, including the packhorse scene panning to tentpole trees, before the Bluff Creek segment starts.


.
R: We were just taking some shots of the scenery and of myself and Bob and . . . 

4. Packhorse footage shows Roger in some scenes, Bob in others

 

R: That's when I seen this.... this creature, about 120 feet away, and she was, at that point, had just turned around and was just going up the bank, this small bank over there and I started running and trying to get a shot of her and I yelled at Bob to cover me.

5. The 120 foot distance will be referenced below, when compared to another distance estimate, #9 below.

 

6.  "I started running and trying to get a shot of her . . . "  The film shows the camera position is in motion from the start. Comparing frame 003 to 006, there is a shift of foreground in relation to a stabilized background, indicating a change of camera position. 32 frames later, (a time passage of 2 seconds if filming frame rate is 16 fps) shows substantial shift of foreground in proportion to a stabilized background, indicating a further substantial change of camera position, specifically moving to the right and closer to all objects. So camera operator is moving while filming from the first frame.

7. Frame 001 has indications of a camera start, so this first known segment of the Bluff Creek footage did start at known frame 001. No evidence of a prior Bluff Creek segment (that might have preceded this) is known to exist.


W: Right, so finally, I'm back to Roger Patterson again,. when you got your camera steadied did you stand still and take the pictures I saw, or did you follow it on foot?

R: I followed it on foot, because this was the only way that I had, I, I viewed the situation of course at the time and I could see her moving away from me and I knew Bob was there, and I thought if I'm ever going to get any pictures I'll have to do it now and I ran, as best I could, and trotted .

Note #6 above verifies camera was moving forward toward subject  throughout filming this segment.


W: How close did you come, at the closest?

R: Well, I think we were closer when we first seen it than at any other time, don't you, Bob?

B: No, I disagree with you there, I believe just immediately after we got across the creek we were probably closer to her at that time than we were when we first sighted her, because she had her back to us at that time and or at least I was closer, because I ran a little further up on the horse, I was moving pretty fast and I got him finally across the creek, so I believe at that time when I crossed the creek I was the closest I ever was to her and I believe it was about ninety feet at that time.

 

NOTE: Several points are taken from the above Q&A

8. When were they closest to the subject? Roger thinks the first sighting but Bob states his perception that is is after they cross the creek and move up to get closer to the subject.

Two frames indicating a creek are VFC 191 and 192. They have  a creek-like dark segment of the ground at bottom of frame, which means in front of camera. So Roger may not have crossed the creek yet at this frame point in time. There is a new camera start at VFC 193, once Roger has crossed the creek and moved up the embankment to be near the "S" shaped branch we see clearly in foreground from VFC 194 on, and the main log of the look-back in distant right Background. Subject can be scaled with some degree of reliability in VFC 207 and VFC 211 and is substantially larger than in the first sequence.

The largest the subject is ever in frame (meaning the point the camera is closest to the subject, in the entire film), and the image is sharp enough to make any kind of reliable estimation of subject size in frame, is VFC 266. This is the beginning of the look-back sequence position, about 10-15' closer than the 207 and 211 position. There is a camera start at VFC 234 so between 193 and 234, there was only between 2 and 3 seconds of filming before Roger moved up to the look back position (time dependent on frame rate, which is still not finalized, hence the 2-3 sec. range).

So the VFC 266 position is the closest clear image, but subject is actually seen in VFC 239 and 240 vaguely, and would be slightly larger in frame, if blur did not prevent a measurement.

So Bob's remark "so I believe at that time when I crossed the creek I was the closest I ever was to her" would be correct if Bob is by Roger's side. For the record, the film can only certify where the camera is, and thus where the person holding the camera is. It cannot certify where a person not holding the camera is.

9. An interesting comparison is the size of the subject in the beginning (frame VFC 003 and 006 are clear) as compared to when the subject is largest in a clear frame, VFC 266.

A comparison of the two shows 3:4 ratio of subject size and distance (as distance increases, size on film decreases by inverse proportion). In a test, the subject size in VFC 266 was set as an image plane at a distance 90 units from camera, and a duplicate of same was moved to 120 units from camera, and compared to the size of subject in frame 003 and 006. The size is substantially similar.

So if the subject were about 120 feet from camera in the beginning, like frame 006, the subject would be about 90 feet away in frame 266, based on increase in image size. This is an approximation, because the subject postures are slightly different (006 the subject being more slumped over, lowering the head more). But it is interesting that it does indicate a fair approximation of the 120 feet estimate compared to the 90 feet estimate. The starting camera distance to subject was some distance by a factor of four (such as 4 x 30' equaling 120' as one possibility) and the largest the subject is seen is a camera to subject distance with a factor of 3 (3 x 30' equaling 90', if we apply the same multiplier, 30' to the ratio factor of each).

So it is not the actual distances (which are "eyeball" estimates, acknowledged) but the proportion of one to the other which is quite accurate, as substantiated by the film. And the largest (and thus closest) the subject is, occurs right after the frames showing a creek bed shoreline, so this closest position is after crossing the creek, as described.

 

W: Now, how far did you follow her? 

R: I really didn't follow her any much further than when my camera run out of film and I knew that it was out, and Bob got on his horse and went after her then, and from that point he seen her more than I did, I never seen her again .

10. "when my camera run out of film" is validated by the camera edge light flashing shown on the last few frames (about VFC 947 to 953) indicating after this, the camera was opened to remove the reel and load another. The edge flare is the typical indication of a camera runout while filing. 

 

W: These are the tracks we saw in the movie tonight.

R: That's right.

11. Trackway footage, generally attributed to second reel footage, is known to exist.


 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
On 12/9/2020 at 9:49 PM, SweatyYeti said:

Another ultra-rare interview, of Roger.....just posted on Youtube today:

 

Roger Patterson Interview With John Napier (1968) - Beyond Rare! - YouTube

 

 

 

 

I watched Roger Patterson's parts twice now.   Roger really seems extremely believable.  I know I am talking about impressions and impressions don't always mean truth.  Some are convincing liars out there.  I would encourage anyone to watch this and just get a feel for the tone of Roger's story and honesty.   Thanks for posting SW.  Hope there will be more.

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2011 at 11:22 PM, roguefooter said:

I do think Cantrell is inventing this claim by Gimlin.

Now that we all know each others opinions on the matter, how about we return to debating factual verified quotes?

 

Pulled this quote from another thread in 2011 that got long and messy. So I won't bump that one. The argument is whether Thom Cantrall misquoted Bob G on initially finding 7 sets of tracks, of which 3 sets broke off. Those were the tracks Roger and Bob followed, as indicated in the interview in this thread.

 

Cantrall has written BF fiction but he is also a knower with direct experiences. He and Bob are now friends of the forest people and have spent a good deal of time talking. Bob has been interviewed hundreds of times since the filming. Maybe it is obvious to others but it isn't obvious to me why the multiple tracks aspect of the filming is not made part of the overall PGF discussion? It seems relevant that there was a BF pod and they were lucky enough to catch a glimpse of the grandma of the group.

 

Also, Cantrall is not one to make stuff up for the sake of a story. Especially when it involves his friend Bob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be curious to know exactly what sources or linked descriptions about these 7 sets of tracks might be found and studied. It is a legitimate issue to explore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bill said:

I would be curious to know exactly what sources or linked descriptions about these 7 sets of tracks might be found and studied. It is a legitimate issue to explore.

 

Nothing definitive. I thought it was a more well known rumor. The logical place to look for detail would be Cantrall's book:  21 Days to Destiny: the Real Story of Bluff Creek. I am going to read it again.

 

I was looking at old threads on BFF and came across a former member who brought it up. Apparently, the rumor is based on Thom's personal conversations with Gimlin who told him that he and Roger had found 7 sets of tracks. 3 of the trackways headed to the creek bottom, where they encountered Patty. The former BFF member indicated this came up in discussion with Thom at the Oregon Sasquatch Symposium in 2010, and with Igor Burtsev at a "pow wow" event in 2010, and during another undated personal conversation with Thom.

 

I don't see why Gimlin would have deliberately left out that aspect of the film expedition.  Why would he just tell Thom? If true, why didn't Roger film it or mention it?  It is pretty clear from reading the old threads that the former BFF member had some strong opinions he could not substantiate.

 

I found it interesting, especially since I am familiar with Cantrall enough to know that he does not fabricate tales. He's definitely into psychic sasquatching but he is also well rounded as a researcher.

Edited by Arvedis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info. I've never come across any discussion of such, but found it a curious avenue to explore.

 

I might check out Thom's book also, to see what's in it.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...