Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Ozfactor

Bob Gimlin regrets releasing Bigfoot video

369 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ozfactor

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/bob-gimlin-explains-why-releasing-his-bigfoot-footage-was-one-big-mistake-he-wished-he-could-undo/news-story/4dc66f0e7adaf352fc19a5fe0262cb6a

 

IT lasts for only 59.5 seconds, but the Patterson-Gimlin film is one of the world’s most infamous and heavily scrutinised works ever produced.

The year was in 1967 and two cowboys from Washington’s apple country were deep in the forest of Northern California in search of a large, hairy, bipedal humanoid known as Bigfoot.

Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin had read headlines of unidentifiable footprints, and were navigating Bluff Creek on horseback with a 16mm Kodak camera.

The search paid off when the pair discovered a gorilla-human hybrid walking along the creek bed, just 30m in front of where they stood.

Patterson disembarked from his horse, scurrying along the uneven terrain as he attempted to film the beast in the wild.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

From the link:

 

However, soon after the collective hit the road, Gimlin sold his share of the rights for the film for less than $10 to another Bigfoot researcher.

 

I'll bet he is very regretful. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I've always felt Gimlin was there just to be the "honest witness" who had no reason to lie. The fact that he was not really into the bigfoot thing really makes you wonder why he was even there, if not just to be a witness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jarjarbinks
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I've always felt Gimlin was there just to be the "honest witness" who had no reason to lie. The fact that he was not really into the bigfoot thing really makes you wonder why he was even there, if not just to be a witness.

Im not into bigfoot but if a friend wants to go on a hike (to find bigfoot or not), i'll go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nzo

It does not seem like he has any reason to lie about the encounter. Who knows? Maybe there really is a secret world inside our world?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quasar_kid

It's not humanly possible to move around in a suit like shown in the footage, there must be more to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

To me there is no doubt that this film shows an actual flesh and blood Sasquatch.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not Your Huckleberry
10 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

You base this statement of fact on what?

 

As far as this thread, IMHO if Bob thought that they'd actually captured an unknown creature, a North American bipedal 7 foot creature, on that film he wouldn't have sold his rights to a stranger for $10.  He probably thought "Only an idiot would believe this is real." and gladly took the ten-spot from the rube. 

Excellent points, as always. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
59 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

You base this statement of fact on what?

 

As far as this thread, IMHO if Bob thought that they'd actually captured an unknown creature, a North American bipedal 7 foot creature, on that film he wouldn't have sold his rights to a stranger for $10.  He probably thought "Only an idiot would believe this is real." and gladly took the ten-spot from the rube. 

Reasonable points, Merc, but I would reply with a couple of questions...#1 Did Gimlin actually see the alleged sasquatch, or was he just left a bit up the path with the horses? #2 Did Gimlin see the film before it was released?

Gimlin may have suspected Patterson of creating a hoax - especially if he never saw (or saw clearly) what was being filmed - and that is enough reason for him to discredit the film and sell off his share so cheaply. Maybe "only an idiot would believe this is real", but maybe also "only an idiot would [automatically] believe this was fake". Gimlin may have just been an idiot.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BeastieRunner
26 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Reasonable points, Merc, but I would reply with a couple of questions...#1 Did Gimlin actually see the alleged sasquatch, or was he just left a bit up the path with the horses? #2 Did Gimlin see the film before it was released?

Gimlin may have suspected Patterson of creating a hoax - especially if he never saw (or saw clearly) what was being filmed - and that is enough reason for him to discredit the film and sell off his share so cheaply. Maybe "only an idiot would believe this is real", but maybe also "only an idiot would [automatically] believe this was fake". Gimlin may have just been an idiot.

That made me legit LOL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jethrofloyd
15 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

Reasonable points, Merc, but I would reply with a couple of questions...#1 Did Gimlin actually see the alleged sasquatch, or was he just left a bit up the path with the horses?

From John Green's interview with Bob Gimlin 1992

"Green: Can you remember details on it's face?

Gimlin: Yes I can. The face would have a flat type nose, the lips, I cant really remember what the lips looked like, except it did have lips and we could see it's teeth. The eyes were large eyes, but not big round eyes like a horse or a cow. but there were large eyes. The hair on it's face was short. The best I can remember is the face didn't have a whole lot of hair on it."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
Just now, jethrofloyd said:

From John Green's interview with Bob Gimlin 1992

"Green: Can you remember details on it's face?

Gimlin: Yes I can. The face would have a flat type nose, the lips, I cant really remember what the lips looked like, except it did have lips and we could see it's teeth. The eyes were large eyes, but not big round eyes like a horse or a cow. but there were large eyes. The hair on it's face was short. The best I can remember is the face didn't have a whole lot of hair on it."

Considering the film shows the creature at a significant distance from the camera, and given the conditions under which the creature was encountered and followed/filmed I suspect Gimlin may be exaggerating as to how clearly he "saw" the creature.

Furthermore, it was Patterson who followed the creature to film it, Gimlin was (presumably) holding the horses. Therefore the duration of time Gimlin had to clearly see the creature was only a few seconds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supervike

I have a soft spot for the the old iconic film, as for me, it represents all things paranormal.

 

But, as any sort of evidence, it is useless.  The controversy surrounding it is far too high to be credible, and quite frankly, it weakens the arguments of 'believers'. 

Other than an entertaining piece of film, it should probably not be used as any sort of proof.  Bigfoot enthusiasts need to look elsewhere.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PrisonerX

If it was a hoax, I doubt he was in on it. He'd have to basically have Alfred Borden dedication to the lie to have endured the kind of abuse he has (and by extension his wife) for what he says he saw. I'm glad he found solace in the "open arms" of the Bigfoot community. It's cool he still does conventions. Still yet to be debunked.

3 hours ago, Leonardo said:

Considering the film shows the creature at a significant distance from the camera, and given the conditions under which the creature was encountered and followed/filmed I suspect Gimlin may be exaggerating as to how clearly he "saw" the creature.

Furthermore, it was Patterson who followed the creature to film it, Gimlin was (presumably) holding the horses. Therefore the duration of time Gimlin had to clearly see the creature was only a few seconds.

I have taken smart phone vids of black bears at like 30 yards. I can see the details of their faces much better with the naked eye, than I can any video replay I've ever viewed of the vids I've taken. He may not be exaggerating all that much, as he undoubtedly had a much better look at the subject than all of the people who have merely viewed it on video. 

Edited by PrisonerX
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
5 hours ago, Leonardo said:

Reasonable points, Merc, but I would reply with a couple of questions...#1 Did Gimlin actually see the alleged sasquatch, or was he just left a bit up the path with the horses? #2 Did Gimlin see the film before it was released?

Gimlin may have suspected Patterson of creating a hoax - especially if he never saw (or saw clearly) what was being filmed - and that is enough reason for him to discredit the film and sell off his share so cheaply. Maybe "only an idiot would believe this is real", but maybe also "only an idiot would [automatically] believe this was fake". Gimlin may have just been an idiot.

I think Jethro answered the first quite clearly yet you continue to argue so please show your proof he didn't see Sasquatch on that  day.  If you have some then we have a man who is clearly a liar.  In answer to your second question, having  seen the creature why in the world would a sane man sell his share of a film for $10 without ever having viewed it?  I'll stick with my first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rod64

Bigfoot is real, this is just another US Government cover-up. They don't want you to think he's real. Who do you think assassinated JFK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taken by the greys

I cannot speak for anyone else but myself. I have seen with my own eyes a creature that was near 10 feet tall, 500 plus pounds, covered in black hair and walked erect.

I have seen hundreds of bears where I live, just a mile from Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba, Canada..and what I saw was not a bear..but very close to what was recorded on this clip.

I never in my life imagined such a thing as real...till it was right in front me, watching me for several long minutes.

So often the truth is right in front of us...but virtually no one can see.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
9 hours ago, Leonardo said:

Considering the film shows the creature at a significant distance from the camera, and given the conditions under which the creature was encountered and followed/filmed I suspect Gimlin may be exaggerating as to how clearly he "saw" the creature.

Furthermore, it was Patterson who followed the creature to film it, Gimlin was (presumably) holding the horses. Therefore the duration of time Gimlin had to clearly see the creature was only a few seconds.

6 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

If it was a hoax, I doubt he was in on it. He'd have to basically have Alfred Borden dedication to the lie to have endured the kind of abuse he has (and by extension his wife) for what he says he saw. I'm glad he found solace in the "open arms" of the Bigfoot community. It's cool he still does conventions. Still yet to be debunked.

I have taken smart phone vids of black bears at like 30 yards. I can see the details of their faces much better with the naked eye, than I can any video replay I've ever viewed of the vids I've taken. He may not be exaggerating all that much, as he undoubtedly had a much better look at the subject than all of the people who have merely viewed it on video. 

Ah, man... PrisonerX, that is what I was going to say. The critter in the video almost always is harder to see detail on then it is in real life. Unless there is a lot of Zooming in that is done.... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Not real. If Bigfoot was that easy and simple to locate, it would have been done, over and over again, by now. Might as well set off to find buried treasure in the woods without a clue where it's actually buried.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
12 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

If it was a hoax, I doubt he was in on it. He'd have to basically have Alfred Borden dedication to the lie to have endured the kind of abuse he has (and by extension his wife) for what he says he saw. I'm glad he found solace in the "open arms" of the Bigfoot community. It's cool he still does conventions. Still yet to be debunked.

I have taken smart phone vids of black bears at like 30 yards. I can see the details of their faces much better with the naked eye, than I can any video replay I've ever viewed of the vids I've taken. He may not be exaggerating all that much, as he undoubtedly had a much better look at the subject than all of the people who have merely viewed it on video. 

When I made the point about Gimlin not seeing the film Patterson shot, that was only in reference to the time before he sold his share of the film. He most probably watched the film at a later time and so, yes, he could make comment about what was filmed. But his comment I replied to above suggests he very clearly saw the creature personally, not on the film as anyone else could have done. My suggestion of his exaggerating how clearly he saw the creature is related to that, because he was left up the trail with the horses.

10 hours ago, Merc14 said:

I think Jethro answered the first quite clearly yet you continue to argue so please show your proof he didn't see Sasquatch on that  day.  If you have some then we have a man who is clearly a liar.  In answer to your second question, having  seen the creature why in the world would a sane man sell his share of a film for $10 without ever having viewed it?  I'll stick with my first post.

I said he may not have seen the creature, and I also said he may not have seen it clearly, which may be why he thought Patterson was plotting a hoax which led to him selling his share of the film so cheaply. there is no inconsistency with that. There is only a situation of a man jumping to a conclusion before seeing the filmed evidence.

Now, is it possible it was a hoax, and Gimlin was in on it? Yes, but I don't see the pair of them capable of creating such a sophisticated hoax with the resources they had. Even if they got the assistance of a Hollywood SFX company of the time, the sophistication of the alleged "suit" was (imo, of course) beyond what the industry was capable of at that time, let alone what Patterson/Gimlin could afford.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
curiouse

The footage has always been a bit creepy. Personally I think the " thing" moves too much like a man its stride etc....

although I do believe there are man apes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
1 hour ago, Leonardo said:

I said he may not have seen the creature, and I also said he may not have seen it clearly, which may be why he thought Patterson was plotting a hoax which led to him selling his share of the film so cheaply. there is no inconsistency with that. There is only a situation of a man jumping to a conclusion before seeing the filmed evidence.

You said he may not have seen the creature and you were completely wrong.  Period.  Admit it and move on.

Quote

Now, is it possible it was a hoax, and Gimlin was in on it? Yes, but I don't see the pair of them capable of creating such a sophisticated hoax with the resources they had. Even if they got the assistance of a Hollywood SFX company of the time, the sophistication of the alleged "suit" was (imo, of course) beyond what the industry was capable of at that time, let alone what Patterson/Gimlin could afford.

Oh please!  What a silly statement that is.  The suit is in no way complex or sophisticated and, in fact, a costume manufacturer came forward and said they made that exact suit by the dozens and it was one of his.  Just what is so sophisticated about a suit where the buttocks doesn't move in any way while the thing is running? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

You said he may not have seen the creature and you were completely wrong.  Period.  Admit it and move on.

Oh please!  What a silly statement that is.  The suit is in no way complex or sophisticated and, in fact, a costume manufacturer came forward and said they made that exact suit by the dozens and it was one of his.  Just what is so sophisticated about a suit where the buttocks doesn't move in any way while the thing is running? 

I said that, but how was I "completely wrong"?

Gimlin may not have seen what Patterson filmed until after he saw the film itself. You can accept Gimlin's word he saw it, of course, but you can also accept Patterson's word that it wasn't a hoax he cooked up. You choose to believe one and not the other, even though both only have their word as "evidence" - why?

I have read about a costume maker who claimed to have made the suit - but no costumer or sfx expert has been able to produce a comparable "suit" based on the technology available at that time. So, again, we only have the word of someone that what they claim is true - there is no evidence*.

* Yes, I know about "the receipt" - but such a thing is easy to fake and does not constitute evidence any suit was made.

Now, as to your opinion that the suit isn't sophisticated, why haven't experts all denounced the film for the same reason(s) you might claim? Is it because they are experts and actually know something about the matter? If I had to choose between your opinion, and that of an expert - I would choose the expert.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.