Jump to content
kitakaze

The Self Contradictions Of Bob Gimlin

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Pt. 1

So who got the horse and why did you have it, Mr. Gimlin?

"Roger got the horses lined up. I didn't take any of my own horses." - Bigfootology interview, Sasquatch Summit, April 2011

http://bigfootology.com/?p=664

"I didn't have anything to do with the cameras. Basically, I was the horse person. Roger was ridin' his horse..." - Larry Battson interview 2010

Green: So you provided the truck and the...

Gimlin: Yeah, and the fuel, and my own horse and my own food. The agreement when we left on any of those investigations was that whatever Roger spent that we would split the expenses with me but Al DeAtley was backing Roger, because Roger didn't have a job at that particular time.

Green: So in fact he only financed Roger, he didn't finance your share at all?

Gimlin: No, he didn't finance my part of the trip at all. I had my own horse, my own equipment and my own food. I didn't expect somebody else to support me on that. It would be nice if I could have gotten part of the fuel pay paid and expenses on the truck.

- John Green 1992 interview (note that Al DeAtley strongly stated that he thought Bigfoot was a fantasy and under no circumstances did he finance any expedition by Roger, let alone one lasting three weeks two states away that left Roger with enough money to airmail the film by charter plane on a day when four charter pilots had grounded their planes because of bad weather)

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

There's lots of published sources to look at, and certainly not only skeptical ones. For example, let's look at Chris Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal and select page 38...

Horse Sense

I have confirmed with Bob Gimlin that Patterson definitely rode a small quarter horse (which he owned), not his Welsh pony "Peanuts." Also, that Patterson had arranged to borrow a horse by the name of "Chico" from Bob Heironimus for Gimlin to use.

That Patterson and Gimlin had borrowed a horse from a man with whom they were friends, and which would later (1999) claim to have been the "creature" in the film seems odd on the surface. However, Gimlin did not have a horse that was suitable (old enough) for the expedition, so Patterson arranged to borrow Chico as stated. It is all that simple. The three men were friends and neighbours and borrowed horses from each other. Although Gimlin can't specifically recall, it is likely he had a borrowed horse for the previous Mt. St. Helens expedition.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=0_vFkL6p5mEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=christopher+murphy+bigfoot+film+journal&source=bl&ots=7C-EUPPCCm&sig=4SepXJajIExjLhW747fk06QfIoM&hl=en&ei=6QIsTcncEIjGsAPml9zsBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Gimlin has just blown away his interview with John Green where he said he provided his own horse and where he said later that the reason he had Chico was because he was breaking the horse in for Heironimus. He is also blowing away the interview with MNBRT where he was saying he went with Roger to Mt. St. Helen's because he had young horses he need to ride in the mountains.

Gimlin's stories are all over the place. He's got Green going one way and Murphy completely another with a Chico runaround.

As I understood it, the horse was a young horse that Bob Gimlin was breaking for Bob H. Its what Bob G does. I seem to recall Bob Gimlin saying something about thinking that a few intensive weeks with this horse being good experience for it, so it is only natural that he would take it to Bluff Creek.

"The horse I was riding was an older cow horse, been roped on and used for a lot of things." - '92 Green interview

"I was havin' a little hard time holdin' my horse, which was an older horse, an old ropin' horse. " Ohio Bigfoot Conference 2010

You knew it was female when you saw it, right?

"I didn't know if it was a female or male." - Ohio 2010

W: Were the breasts visible?

B: They were visible.

W: Were they covered with hair?

B: They were covered with hair.

- Jack Webster radio interview November 1967

And you never, ever touched the camera, right?

"And so Roger had the camera with him all the time. I never carried the camera ever because I don't even take pictures to this day with cameras." - Battson interview

Bob Gimlin: After chasing them up and down the road for a little while and finally catching them, well we talked it over and I said I'd check around and see if maybe that I could find some tracks where she had come into this area and possibly sight the other one, so I took the camera while he gathered up his stuff and...

Jack Webster: You scouted around for a while did you? Well when did you... were you able to identify specifically the tracks you had made while you were following her?

Mr. Gimlin, you were close friends with Bob Heironimus or you were not? Which is it?

I have talked to Gimlin at the Ohio conference and he made it very clear that Bob H and him were not friends and were never close friends in the past.

"I know Bob. He's been a friend of mine for as long time, but as far as I'm concerned, he was not there that I know of, and I don't think he was there at all. And he probably tryin' to make a buck. These guys are coming out of the wall saying the've been in a suit down in Norrthern California."

"I'd say the story Bob has come up with is pretty far-fetched as far as I'm concerned. You know, I've confronted Bob on that. I've said, 'Hey, what's going on?' But he won't talk about it. We're still friends. He just lives a little ways from me. I've worked with him and I've done things with Bob. I've rode horses with him. But this thing he's telling all the people around that he was in a suit in Northern California, it kind of just don't make sense to me."

"I used to trust Bob a lot, but then lately him and the whole family kind of prevaricates. They think things. You know, I don't make statements against my friends or neighbours, but this thing is kind of out of proportion as far as I'm concerned."

Bob Gimlin to Greg Long - September 18, 2001. MoB, p. 422

More self contradictions of Bob Gimlin coming up. Also coming up, new threads "The Self Contradictions of Roger Patterson," and "The Mutual Contradictions of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BuzzardEater

I met Jack Webster a couple of times over the years. He was an engaging fellow, with one of the sharpest BS detectors I have ever seen in action.This guy sparred with Trudeau and shredded lesser men. I do not think I'd try to fool him. He was genuinely interested in people and would "interview" everyone he met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBFRPKY

Years ago I built a go kart track for my kids. 4 kids at that time and 4 go karts. Red, yellow, blue and black. A good friend of mine was at the house one day and just for fun, I hopped on the black kart, he hopped on the red one and off we went racing around the track like 2 kids.

It was neck and neck most times as my friend is heavier than me, but the red kart was a bit faster than the black kart I was on. When we finished riding, we headed for the shade trees and a cold soda.

While talking about the racing and laughing, my friend would say "My kart is faster on the straights but you get me on the turns every time." Do you wanna try my kart next time and I'll drive yours?"

You know, it never occurred to me for one second that he was claiming legal ownership of the red go kart. To us it was common knowledge he was speaking of the kart he was riding at the time.

Why would it occur to you that Bob Gimlin is declaring legal ownership of the horse he was riding? Isn't it the same common knowledge type thing to refer to the horse he was riding as "his horse"?

Chris B.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Why would it occur to you that Bob Gimlin is declaring legal ownership of the horse he was riding? Isn't it the same common knowledge type thing to refer to the horse he was riding as "his horse"?

Chris B.

Chris.

Bob Heironimus said the same thing about his mother's car.

"I put the suit in the back of the car, my car." —XZone radio interview, December 7, 2006.

Yet it wasn't Bob H's car. It was his mother's.

Strangely, I've never heard Kitakaze nitpick Bob H for saying his mother's car was "my car!".

:lol:

Edited by Kerchak
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I met Jack Webster a couple of times over the years. He was an engaging fellow, with one of the sharpest BS detectors I have ever seen in action.This guy sparred with Trudeau and shredded lesser men. I do not think I'd try to fool him. He was genuinely interested in people and would "interview" everyone he met.

Very interesting indeed. And thanks for posting that, because you made me realize that I forgot to link the transcript of his interview with P&G...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Years ago I built a go kart track for my kids. 4 kids at that time and 4 go karts. Red, yellow, blue and black. A good friend of mine was at the house one day and just for fun, I hopped on the black kart, he hopped on the red one and off we went racing around the track like 2 kids.

That makes you Rad Dad.

Why would it occur to you that Bob Gimlin is declaring legal ownership of the horse he was riding? Isn't it the same common knowledge type thing to refer to the horse he was riding as "his horse"?

Chris B.

Nothing like it occurred to me. I'm not having any contention with Bob's use of the word "my horse" when referring to his use of Bob heironimus' horse Chico at Bluff Creek. To be sure, it is perfectly natural for him to refer to it as "my horse" while recounting the events of encountering Patty.

No, what I am pointing out is the contradictions of where "my horse" came from and who supplied it. Did Roger provide it or did he? Meaning, did Roger borrow it from Bob or did he? He says both. And he also gives conflicting reasons as to why that horse was being used by him. Breaking that horse in for Heironimus for three weeks? Hooey! He said it was an old roping horse, experienced, trailwise, and used for many things. He also said that in his longtime friendship with Heironimus, they road in the mountains in the Yakima Valley together. No such horse needs any breaking in by him. But then it's Roger procuring the horse because he didn't have an horses experienced enough. Well, goodness. In that case you're getting an experienced horse, not one you're doing someone a service for by taking it into the mountains two states away on a Bigfoot expedition. The Chico element is a big mess and every time I see another conference or Internet radio interview with Bob where his fans play softball with him, well, I would like Jack Webster to walk in and say, "So tell us more about that horse, Bob."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Chris.

Bob Heironimus said the same thing about his mother's car.

"I put the suit in the back of the car, my car." —XZone radio interview, December 7, 2006.

Yet it wasn't Bob H's car. It was his mother's.

Strangely, I've never heard Kitakaze nitpick Bob H for saying his mother's car was "my car!".

:lol:

As I just explained to Chris, Gimlin saying "my horse" is a non-issue for me. Look at the bold and you will see what my issue is... "I provided my own horse."

Not that I find your Bob Heironimus quote there in any way interesting or contradictory, say I wanted to hear the interview for myself and not rely on you or Roger Knights - do you have a link to the original source? I try to be careful about ensuring the reader does not have to rely solely on me when checking qoutes and has the source wherever possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBFRPKY

Kitakaze,

Since you set in bold type "my own horse" and "I had my own horse" from Bob Gimlin's interview above, it seemed that's where you were going with it.

Did Roger borrow Chico or did Bob Gimlin? If both have been said it could have very well been both. Roger may have borrowed Chico but Bob Gimlin could have also been riding/breaking him in/training the horse to ride in the terrain? Or, both men could have been there when Chico was picked up? Maybe it was said as a polite way of saving face for Bob G. If he was a cowboy without a horse and all.

Either way to me, the horse issue doesn't seem like a problem. Now if Bob H's car was proven to have been there via a parking ticket or something, THAT would be a big problem for the P/G film.

Chris B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
BFF Donor

OMG, the horses thing again?

DQWindmill.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
Did Roger borrow Chico or did Bob Gimlin? If both have been said it could have very well been both. Roger may have borrowed Chico but Bob Gimlin could have also been riding/breaking him in/training the horse to ride in the terrain? Or, both men could have been there when Chico was picked up? Maybe it was said as a polite way of saving face for Bob G. If he was a cowboy without a horse and all.

Roger borrowing the horse for Gimlin and yet also Gimlin doing a favour for Heironimus as he said also and breaking in the horse for three weeks doesn't work because he's already describe the horse as an old, experienced, trailwise horse and one that Bob Heironimus rode in the mountains of Yakima with him. He also said that one of the reasons he agreed to go to Mt. St. Helens with Roger was because he had his own horses that he needed to take up into the mountains. So if he could do that for Mt. St. Helens, why not for NorCal? It doesn't make sense.

Moreover, you would think that considering the fact that Gimlin has now been put into a situation where he had no choice but to acknowledge that he had Heironimus' horse, you'd think he'd be perfectly clear about how and why, but he's all over the place with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Mr. Gimlin, you watched Roger jumping logs and crashing through the thick bushing chasing a running Patty?

At that point, I asked Bob (because he was then what is called "the back-up man," which means that he was now close enough to see Roger clearly) "Just what was Roger doing?"

"He was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into the real thick bush."

"Did you see her, too?"

"Yeah, Ivan, but 'way ahead and really taking off for the hills."

This brought me up sharp, because I had by this time viewed their film (and half a dozen out-takes, blown up, in full color as transparencies, examined under strong magnifying lenses on an illuminated shadow-box several times and projected by three different projectors). In every case, the creature was--at standard speed for photogs, i.e., twenty-four frames per see--as Roger said, at first just ambling along, swinging her rather long arms, not running-scared, and even stopping for a brief look-see over her shoulder as it were; then ambling on again into the deep woods. Yet here was the back-up man saying that she had "taken off for the hills". Roger, however, backed up his back-up man unprompted:

When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off--running, I mean because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three and a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks. Now, down by the creek, in the sand, where we first spotted her, her stride was from forty to forty-two inches from the back of the heel on the left side to the back of the right heel ahead; but when she got really going, she left tracks that measured sixty-five inches from back heel to back heel. Man, she was running just like you and I do!

- First interview with Ivan Sanderson, New York City, November 1967

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/first_photos_of__bigfoot__cali.html

"It never did break into a run" - Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World

And once again Gimlin says he observed the mammary glands and that it appeared female, contradicting himself saying he had no idea what gender it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnie Bass

So instead of addressing the contradictions of Bob H this is the avenue kit decides to take....very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So who got the horse and why did you have it, Mr. Gimlin?

All of your quotes are only related to the Bluff Creek “expedition� Also, are all of those quotes related to each other? Or, is Gimlin speaking about expeditions? Was Gimlin describing himself as a horse-person or a person that procured the horses or a person that had a specific horse there for a specific reason (i.e., breaking in, allowed to use, asked to use, doing a favor for someone), or making a distinction between the “equipment guy†(Patterson) and the “horse guy†(Gimlin)? Seems Roger was more the camera guy and Gimlin the other resources (truck/horses)?

Your quotes don’t have much context unless you provide it.

“Roger got the horses lined up. I didn't take any of my own horses...â€

“...I was the horse person. Roger was ridin' his horse...â€

“...my own horse..â€.

“...I had my own horse...â€

So, you concede “my†doesn’t have anything with ownership and can be related to possession at the time. So, the contention is what again?

You knew it was female when you saw it, right?

Seems hair would not camouflage a breast. Seems most of us would still see a breast if it was one, with or without hair.

And you never, ever touched the camera, right?

“...so I took the camera while he gathered up his stuff...†Does that indicate he held the camera so Patterson could gather his stuff, or that he took the camera as the “camera man� I think there is a significant distinction and not necessarily a contradiction.

Your arguments/contentions are weak. I was going to keep going, but I’m tired of this for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wufgar

If Gimlin were in on a hoax, he would know that the costume had breasts (BobH claims that the duo helped put the suit onto him after all). What reason would he have to say that he didn't know the gender, then contradict himself later by saying it was female because of breasts? To make it easier for skeptics to pick apart his story? This is innocent sounding stuff. BobH's flubs sound like story changes to fit his needs and/or inability to remember how he spun his tale the last time. This whole thread offers zero defense for BobH's shifting story line; it's just a diversion from the real issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

The confusion becomes understandable if you realize that there was more than one trip, and only on one of these trips (1st or 2nd week in October,) did Patterson borrow Bob Hieronimus' horse, that being the trip during which Bob H was in the costume and the filming was done.

Recall that Gimlin uses the same kind of obfuscation in his "look me in the eye" statement, saying there were only two people there "that day," well, sure there were only two people there on Oct. 20, but that wasn't the day the film was shot.

Since there were at least two and possibly three trips, Gimlin had his choice of "true" stories about where his mount came from and why. The problem is, he can't keep them all straight, especially once he had to admit that Chico was there when the film was made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×