Jump to content
kitakaze

The Self Contradictions Of Bob Gimlin

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

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

Ah, but there, I1, you are mistaken. I very much do have an idea and it was from the mouths of Patterson, Gimlin, and DeAtley that is came. The how itself is the problem. Heed Gimlin's explanation for how chronicly unemployed Roger was able to get the scratch together for a three week expedition...

Green: What was Al DeAtley's role in this?

Gimlin: Well, Al DeAtley was Roger's brother-in-law and he backed Roger financially with whatever expenses it took Roger to go to these places. He was supposed to help me on some of these expenses which I never did receive.

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

Oh dear. That is not good. Gimlin is specifically referencing an understanding regarding him and Al DeAtley, not just Roger. As in this was something spoken about and agreed upon. Well, that's a problem, isn't it? Considering Al DeAtley up and down, over and over said he thought Bigfoot was hooey and no way, no how would he ever have paid for any expedition looking for Bigfoot(!), let alone three weeks in California looking for said Bigfoot. But Roger also gave us some hints...

W: How can you afford to take all this time off to go down . oh no, well first of all, how long have you been looking for sasquatch, live sasquatch?

R: Well, off and on, for about seven and a half years, but the last four years I've made much more of an effort than any other time.

W: You're financially independent?

R: Well, somewhat.

W: In other words you can go out for this kind of caper without suffering too much financially.

R: Well, it's been tough.

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

It would appear that Roger is alluding to outside support. Just the support that Gimlin is saying he and Roger had an understanding with DeAtley about, yet Al screwed poor Bob. It would also appear a very likely conclusion that Al DeAtley is concealing a far greater involvement and interest in the PGF than he would admit to in his interviews with Greg Long.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
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.

Your argument is highly skewed in a place that doesn't sync with reality. Outside our Bigfootery world, that film doesn't give Gimlin any standing. It's just a quaint piece of Americana that very few consider to be anything more than a person in a suit.

Hieronimous has NOTHING but his words.

And those of every witness to the suit. And those of every person who has testimony regarding Roger hoaxing. And those who have been witness to his claim since as early as at least 1970. In that sense, he has much more than P&G who contradict themselves and each other all over the place. A film with no provenance showing a subject with human proportions means nothing at all in terms of their standing then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Preposterous. Roger Patterson isn't interviewed, and if he were, it would still be 35 years ago. You state RP couldn't have afforded the expedition to Bluff Creek. If I were around you I'd stick a needle into you to deflate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

In that sense, he has much more than P&G who contradict themselves and each other all over the place. A film with no provenance showing a subject with human proportions means nothing at all in terms of their standing then.

No provenance?? Human proportions?? What film are you talking about? Did you miss the fact that BH constantly contradicts himself??

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.

That's just how people talk, parn. Would you expect him to say: 'Look me in the eye; there were only two people there on October, 20th, 1967.' ?? That's silly isn't it? Everybody knew what day he was talking about.

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Except that Gimlin was at Bluff Creek when the film was made. Too bad we don't have a series of interviews done of someone who was part of a famous event. Then we'd have a base line to consider what is normal in term of the number of contradictions that eventually develop during the recounting of an event over the years. 5 will get you 10 there's always self contradiction after a while whether it be a documented factual event or a questionably real event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Wait Parn is stating that Oct 20 1967 was not the day the PRG was shot. OK Parn put up or shut up deliver proof hard cold indisputable proof that the film was not shot on OCT 20, 1967. I say you can't and you won't.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Preposterous. Roger Patterson isn't interviewed, and if he were, it would still be 35 years ago.

Kweh? You were responding to a post with a link to the transcript of a November 1967 interview with Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin interview in Canada, no?

You state RP couldn't have afforded the expedition to Bluff Creek.

Gimlin stated the same thing. He couldn't afford it without Al because he was unemployed...

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

there you go again KIT? another curve ball! four pilots grounded! why because those four or not rated to fly under IFR. which you were told about in previous threads!

then you did claim that ALL flights were grounded. again more nonsense. IFR flights not grounded . speculation after speculation.then what has four pilots got to do with time-off work?

I and many more, would like a simple answer! can you explain how time off making "multi trips" back down then back up fits and did not jeopardize there employment. while your debating that! fit Longs placement into this his timeline that because BH saw a banner for a Rodeo which whilst on his way to hoax a Bigfoot was indeed promoting a BIGFOOT jamboree which occurred in early September. some small mistake that is?

so was your man down there then? or are you going with BH and his tale that?

• 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 ?

Edited by justwonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I moved this post to the Bob H thread just to keep on topic.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

lets run with Kits theory! flights grounded.that implies real bad weather. well lets pick our dates! 20th Oct heavy rain low ceiling.the time the films supposed to be posted.

now lets run Long early Sept Labour day! or BH 7th OCT. anyone can find records of those two dates and the weather? this will be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Kweh? You were responding to a post with a link to the transcript of a November 1967 interview with Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin interview in Canada, no?

Gimlin stated the same thing. He couldn't afford it without Al because he was unemployed...

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.

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

kitakaze,

You make me laugh at times, you are willing to take Bob G's words on some things, an on others, not a chance. I recall a bit back, you were talking' that a great many agreed with you on some silly thin', you went so far as to say we are many, an even used the word Legion, an recently, I recall you saying' when questioned, you're just one, not Legion. I have seen/read/ heard so many mistakes from you kitakaze, regarding' others an their opinions, as to hold little regard for your observations an opinions.

Don't get me wrong kitakaze, it's not you, simply just about the credibility of any of your arguments. Your animation you feel suggest a human could indeed fit the sasquatch, take the time an frame by frame it. It doesn't take much more than a first glance to see how poorly the human fits width wise.

You say it's capable, I'd say...really ! Not hard to see that it isn't. Not with your overlay.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

nothing! no reply no rebuttals,why? time lines don't fit into BH or Longs accounts. Long did all he could to undermine RP. BH had to tow along and make things fit.yet major flaws crop up time after time. we see that BH is given to be the honest hardworking person. yet he is known to own a suit well before the filming. by his own tale he shows off said suit on his return! the facts of this though do not come to light until far later when toting his tale for cash. why many like he says saw the suit and many must have seen the film none came forward and gave a statement that yes we saw said suit and was told BH that's the suit in the film before it was shown!

Long, he goes on a crusade to belittle RP. yet anyone can read the many manipulations he fosters into his tales and many do not add up.

we, have three strangers,who before Longs expose did not know each other! yet then we are told that a certain Mr Morris made said suit, yet the makeup and parts don't tally with the tale given by BH, BUT LATER DO? then we have the tale by BH that he was entrusted with the suit and film. why? no compelling reason to do such!

now if your attempting,to partake in a hoax like that,do you believe that is the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I do not think Gimlin's contradictions amount to a hill of beans next to the whoppers of BH. Without BH the comitted hoax believers have not much. So therefore to BH they cling. (IMO)

I too think it it sad that this is how the BH contradictions are addressed instead of adressing them proper.

Edited by Thickfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Okay so we only have about 4 contradictions now? Maybe you should just change the thread title to "The Self Contradictions Of Everyone Other Than Heironimus", to save forum space.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×