Jump to content
kitakaze

The Self Contradictions Of Bob Gimlin

Recommended Posts

GuyInIndiana

OMG, the horses thing again?

DQWindmill.jpg

Yep. When you beat a dead (where'd that emoticon go?) horse long enough... uh... well, er, you take a break, catch your breath, and then find another stick and start beatin' it again.

Edited by GuyInIndiana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

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.

You've never talked to Bob about that day have you ? Obfuscation...speculation on your part.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So, parnassus, you agree that the statements can’t be held against each other as there is no way to tell whether they relate to one, two or multiple trips to Bluff Creek, or to other expeditions/travels entirely? Makes it even more confusing when they are quoted without the context in which the statements were made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

These semantic arguments are feeble but they are all the skeptics have. The endless parsing of words like "that day" and trying to make them mean something they were not intended to mean has become so common that all they can do is wash, rinse and repeat over and over and over again.

Bob Heironimous never went to Bluff Creek to make the film. He is not in the film. He is not wearing a suit for Roger in the film at Bluff Creek or anywhere else.

I can just as easily say that he showed off his mothers fur coat and claimed it was a suit since no one recalls him removing the suit from the trunk of the car and holding it up for all to see exactly what it was. Wouldn't he have wanted all of his cowboy friends to see the falsies he claims he was wearing?

Edited by Jodie
edited to conform to forum R&G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

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

But let's not forget that even if we see some weaknesses in Gimlin's words as well as weaknesses in Hieronimous' words that does not level them up.

Nobody disputes that Gimlin was one of the two who got the film and brought it out to the world-- the Patterson-Gimlin film. So what if he misremembers odd bits. The fiim gives him standing.

Hieronimous has NOTHING but his words. When he misremembers, his only potential source of credibility is gone. With such poor and inconsistent words, why should we believe him at all? There's no substantiating evedence.No other connection to the film, beyond his weak words.

Come on Hoax believers and Hieronimous fans, get on the other thread and stand by your man for a while. Stop these diversion attempts.

Fister

Edited by Fister Crunchman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

parnassus, post 15.

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.

well what about the sign he "BH" says he saw for a banner promoting a "Rodeo" at Happy Camp on his way to Bluff Creek adding to his credibility of making the trip. but then Long later learned there was not and as never been a Rodeo at Happy Camp! and "He Long" decided it must have been a banner for the Bigfoot Jamboree on Labor Day weekend, therefore the film must have been shot in early September !

please provide any evidence you can? show the other trips to the area? or again just speculation.

Edited by justwonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Okay, I'm convinced. Bob's contradictions prove he's a hoaxer. Oh, wait........do I have the wrong Bob?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

you must remember,both RP/BG worked for a living and time off from such is limited. to claim multiple trips back down to that area was time they could not afford.

• Sunday, Oct. 1: Patterson & Gimlin pick up Heironimus’s horse Chico and depart for CA. (This agrees with conventional wisdom about the PGF: that Patterson & Gimlin left Yakima on Oct 1—or anyway that they were down in California for three weeks before filming Patty.)

• Wednesday, Oct. 4: Heironimus leaves Yakima, arrives in Bluff Creek at 5pm, and sleeps in Patterson @ Gimlin’s camp. yet his said meeting place never existed. his recollection on the distance to the camp is miles out.

• Thursday, Oct. 5: Heironimus does his Patty-walk, drives to Eureka (a two hour journey at least), mails the film, and stays overnight in a local motel. why not also mail the suit also! if discovery of having such was a major concern?

• Friday, Oct. 6: Heironimus arrives in Yakima in the late afternoon or evening (after an 11+-hour journey), goes right to the Idle Hour, and later returns to his mom’s.

• Saturday, Oct. 7: Heironimus sleeps in until the afternoon; his mom and nephew discover the suit at 10am. “Late that night†Patterson & Gimlin return the horse and retrieve the suit (p. 365)—one day after Heironimus arrived in Yakima. (Or let’s say 30 hours at the maximum, if Heironimus arrived in Yakima at 6pm Friday and Patterson & Gimlin retrieved the suit on midnight Saturday.)

no rebuttal from Long on time and placement! remember He Long" decided it must have been a banner for the Bigfoot Jamboree on Labor Day weekend, therefore the film must have been shot in early September !

no matter how you try to square the circle. that don't match! so who is giving a truthful account?

Edited by justwonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

you must remember,both RP/BG worked for a living and time off from such is limited. to claim multiple trips back down to that area was time they could not afford.

Would you mind sharing with us what Roger's job was at that time? It would be helpful in understanding how he could afford three weeks in NorCal with enough cash at the end of it to charter a flight since by DeAtley's testimony, he never would have funded such nonsense, as he considered it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

you are being pedantic! and my mistake! it should ask about BH/BG. you know full well the two guys that are being asked about. but I will ask you, what did both Bobs do for employment! and could thay afford all that time off? we do have a statement given by BG

Bob Gimlin relates great detail concerning the PG film

Bob Gimlin relates the events of, before and after the PG film. "Blind Luck meets preparation" Second in a series of interviews by Rhett Mullis. For those skeptics out there, watch there is no shoulder shrug, no touching the nose, he looks toward recall not construct. This is a very real and honest account about what is likely the luckiest and best day in our history. (full 53 mn interview at Bigfootology)

Posted by Bigfoot on Tuesday, April 26, 2011
yet your man says nothing. Edited by justwonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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?

Saying over here that he provided the horse and over there that Roger did. Saying that Bob Heironimus' horse was in his possession because he was doing Bob a favour by breaking Chico in in the mountains of Norcal for three weeks. Saying Roger borrowed the horse because he didn't have any horses experienced enough. Saying he went to Mt. St Helens with Roger because he had young horses he needed to ride in the mountains. Saying that the horse didn't buck because it was old roping horse, that did many things and was trailwise. Saying he rode with Heironimus in the mountains. Such a horse that already has long experience being ridden in the mountains by Heironimus needs nothing from Gimlin that Heironimus did not already long provide. It's a mess and something that should't have so many conflicting reasons coming out of Gimlin's mouth considering it regards the only man ever to seriously claim to be in the suit; a man who was his longtime friend and in Roger's Bigfoot movie.

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 yet in contradiction to the Jack Webster and BBC interviews where he recognized it was female by the mammary glands, the Bigfootology and Ohio recordings have him saying he had no idea the gender.

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.

When one actually listens to the context of the interview, it is clear that Gimlin is saying that he grabbed the camera and went after Bigfoot to either try and film its tracks or it again. This very same interview they are saying they tracked the Bigfoot for 3.5 miles. Absolute hooey that Gimlin later abandoned and could not possibly work with the already impossible timeline. But then he goes and is completely adamant that he never so much as laid a finger on the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

you are being pedantic! and my mistake! it should ask about BH/BG. you know full well the two guys that are being asked about. but I will ask you, what did both Bobs do for employment! and could thay afford all that time off? we do have a statement given by BG

Bob Gimlin relates great detail concerning the PG film

Bob Gimlin relates the events of, before and after the PG film. "Blind Luck meets preparation" Second in a series of interviews by Rhett Mullis. For those skeptics out there, watch there is no shoulder shrug, no touching the nose, he looks toward recall not construct. This is a very real and honest account about what is likely the luckiest and best day in our history. (full 53 mn interview at Bigfootology)

Posted by Bigfoot on Tuesday, April 26, 2011
yet your man says nothing.

1) Pedantic would be trivial, and how Roger could possibly not only support a three week expedition in NorCal, yet also pay for chartering a plane when four of the local pilots had grounded their planes because of bad weather; no, sir, that is not trivial at all. Of course, since Roger in his own words and in multiple sources said it wasn't three weeks, but only one... well, now we're getting into those troublesome Patterson VS Gimlin contradictions which I will save for another thread.

2) In that particular interview, Bob G says he was hot roofing and driving truck. Bob H was working for Boise Cascade at the time. BG claims a three week absence, BH, three days. This was, of course, before the two friends both worked together at Pepsi Noel Corporation.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Jeebus! Now you're interpreting and dissing events that occurred in two cowboy's lives over 40 years ago. Really?

I'd recommend giving it a rest, but I know how far any such advice will be considered.

Yet you make value judgements upon two men you've never met, one long since passed, and somehow think those are valid? Wow. I've a good opinion of myself, but wouldn't ever try to pass myself off as worthy to decipher events and decisions two generations removed.

Edited by Incorrigible1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Jeebus! Now you're interpreting and dissing events that occurred in two cowboy's lives over 40 years ago. Really?

Could you be specific to which events you are referring and the manner of disrespect you speak of? I'm taking it as a given the two cowboys you are referring to are P&G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

You've no idea if/whether Roger Patterson could afford a three week expedition to California. Your assumptions tower over Mount Everest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×