Jump to content
kitakaze

The Self Contradictions Of Bob Gimlin

Recommended Posts

Martin

I agree .... Gimlin lied about stealing plywood and such.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

There in lies the difference...Long asked Gimlin..."Let me ask you: Have you ever been arrested ? I've got a case on a Robert E. Gimlin arrested for accepting stolen plywood and nails. Was that you ?" 

 

Here you are sayin' "Gimlin lied about stealing plywood and such...", I just finished mentionin' your earlier claim about bein' concerned that folks not introduce false statements, I just gave you an example of you doin' it in the past, an here you are doin' it again ! Unbelievable !

 

There's a huge difference between stealin' somethin' an recievin' stolen property, but clearly "by all accounts"...your not concerned with the truth at this point are you Martin !

 

It's fascinatin' you argue Gimlin's credibility by what he has said...when you say sooooooo much ! 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

This is Gimlin's lie...

 

Long: "Let me ask you: Have you ever been arrested? I've got a case on a Robert E. Gimlin accepting stolen plywood and nails. Was that you?"

 

Gimlin: "No. Not me. There's about five Robert E. Gimlins."

 

Screen%20Shot%202017-07-02%20at%201.40.3

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/gimlin-lied.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

And then there is this....

 

From the "Actual Developing" thread regarding the appearance of the subject in the PGF, Bigfoot Hunter states:

 

"When Bob and I talked about the film he had said that he recalls getting to see it at some point before going to BC, but he wasn't certain what it was. He had said that the film was not the same as seeing it in person, which should go without saying. He said that the color of the fur was a reddish brown - the face was the tone of a sun-burnt Indian, but a different tint than the hair. He said it was powerful looking - we built. He said that while he heard about these creatures as Roger would play recorded testimonies of other-eye-witnesses - Bob said he never really expected to actually see one. I asked him if he ever had dreams of that moment and he said something like he used to in the beginning, but not as much as time went on."

 

In this 1992 interview,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBwsPlcHtNw&t=1092s

 

John Green states that according to Gimlin, the creature was black and had an apelike face.

The interview is unclear, but it appears that this is the description that was recorded by Gimlin for Green's database.

A trick of light? Or is Bob color blind?....

 

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Least the Chico nonsense has been dropped...for now...but I'd be willin' ta bet he'll bring it up again.

 

An Bob lied about somethin' in 1962...that has nothin' ta do with the PGF...you'd think the skeptics could have at least provided a follow up, if Gimlin was found guilty of acceptin' stolen property ! Was he actually charged with said crime, as apposed to bein' arrested for it, big difference !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The issue is not about conviction of theft. The issue is Gimlin flat out lying about the case and trying to make Long think it was some other Rober E. Gimlin when he knew exactly what Long was talking about.

He could have easily told the truth and explained the circumstances but he chose to lie and to attempt to throw Long off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the film. Your hero lied every step of the way and that doesn't matter to you. 

For an intelligent young man you seem oblivious to the simple facts that you have been totally deceived by a less than average intelligent individual who has absolutely nothing to do with the Patterson film.Real or not. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It's sociologically fascinating to watch the behaviour of people doing anything and everything to shift the attention away from this.

 

That we have proof Gimlin flat out lied to an investigator on the record in order to maintain the appearance of innocence is directly relevant to establishing the integrity and provenance of the source of the film.

 

He was arrested and taken to jail. His parent posted $3000 bond to bail him out. He signed the bond and both his parents did as well. 

He knew exactly what Long was talking about it and he did his used car salesman routine and flat out lied making it seem like it must have been some other Robert E. Gimlin.

Hey, Salt of the Earth, your signature is on the bond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

What you fail to mention of course is the simple fact that I am quite sure the creature does not exist. I am scientist and of course it is  illogical. However, I am also quite sure the person you promote does not appear in the film. 

He is simply a fraud and does nothing to prove your case of forgery. 

In fact he lends credence to the other side. You really need to find another angle.

 

I love the film and all it entails. I am disappointed in the fact the supposed creature is a foot shorter than me.

 

I think you have the ability to prove or disprove the authenticity of the film, but not if you are resigned to the false belief that Bob fraud is the creature. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

PG,

 

1 - You really want to talk about Bob Heironimus. Can you please do that in a Bob Heironimus thread? This one is about Bob Gimlin.

 

2 - Pretty much every post you make starts out thus...
 

 

Whether that is in fact true or not, it has nothing to do with Gimlin being caught flat out lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
14 hours ago, kitakaze said:

The issue is not about conviction of theft. The issue is Gimlin flat out lying about the case and trying to make Long think it was some other Rober E. Gimlin when he knew exactly what Long was talking about.

He could have easily told the truth and explained the circumstances but he chose to lie and to attempt to throw Long off.

 

 

So could you have told the truth....very clearly, without creating any false impressions.....when you made your bold declarations about "having three confessions"...which "exist", and "prove the PGF is a hoax". 

 

You could have boldly declared/explained that those "confessions" were nothing more than unsupported allegations made by the Heironimus clan.

 

Is that not true? :popcorn: 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
19 hours ago, kitakaze said:

It's sociologically fascinating to watch the behaviour of people doing anything and everything to shift the attention away from this.

 

That we have proof Gimlin flat out lied to an investigator on the record in order to maintain the appearance of innocence is directly relevant to establishing the integrity and provenance of the source of the film.

 

He was arrested and taken to jail. His parent posted $3000 bond to bail him out. He signed the bond and both his parents did as well. 

He knew exactly what Long was talking about it and he did his used car salesman routine and flat out lied making it seem like it must have been some other Robert E. Gimlin.

Hey, Salt of the Earth, your signature is on the bond.

 

 

What at was the result of the court action?  Did he serve time after a conviction on the theft?  Details?  Was he convicted?

 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
20 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the film. Your hero lied every step of the way and that doesn't matter to you. 

For an intelligent young man you seem oblivious to the simple facts that you have been totally deceived by a less than average intelligent individual who has absolutely nothing to do with the Patterson film.Real or not. 

One would have to ask if Long has ever lied, about anythin' before or after...because if he has, our intransigent skeptic would have to deny his credibility as well, but we know he couldn't do that. 

 

He says we're tryin' ta make it go away, yet when you bring up known contradictions from Heironimus regardin the PGF...all of a sudden he tells you to take it elsewhere haha !

 

It is sociologically fascinatin' to watch him work, he just said "What Gimlin does not get a pass for is the BS ninja maneuver he tried .." an then claimed it was me who needed to present my opponent as " You need your opponents in a debate to be shifty ninja liars.." haha ! It really is over his head.

 

Can you imagine the field day a shrink would have with this tidbit..." I know for myself that the PGF is a hoax, but I also know that has little value because I've only settled the question for myself personally. What I really want is to see the day when the most devout believers have to accept it as well.

I want to see how they  react, how the progress and how they move forward. That aspect of social studies is deeply interesting to me. Devout belief and the psychological/emotional impact/process of having it fall apart.
''

 

The emotional scars must be deep, he has said it himself, he was once a believer, then at some point it all fell apart for him, even for someone who admits to disregardin' what didn't fit with what he wanted to believe to be true, it's understandable how the need for others to feel that same experience...to "having it fall "as he says...it's understandable...not healthy,,,but understandable ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

What at was the result of the court action?  Did he serve time after a conviction on the theft?  Details?  Was he convicted?

 

 

On July 2, 2017 at 2:31 PM, kitakaze said:

The issue is not about conviction of theft. The issue is Gimlin flat out lying about the case and trying to make Long think it was some other Rober E. Gimlin when he knew exactly what Long was talking about.

He could have easily told the truth and explained the circumstances but he chose to lie and to attempt to throw Long off.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
7 hours ago, kitakaze said:

 

 

 

Kit,

 

was he convicted or not?

 

see, if he wasn't and assuming long is being honest, then it would make perfect sense gimlin might lie anyway to save embarrassment. 

 

 

i know you don't want to make if he was actually convicted the issue but my asking is making it one.  It's ok if he was.  Just tell me:

 

Was Gimln actually convicted in this incident?  Convicted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...