Saturday, April 20, 2024
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries
You are viewing: Home > News > Creatures, Myths & Legends > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Creatures, Myths & Legends

Bob Gimlin speaks out about Bigfoot footage

By T.K. Randall
July 7, 2016 · Comment icon 368 comments

A still frame from the original Bluff Creek video. Image Credit: Roger Patterson / Bob Gimlin
One of the two men who filmed the infamous Bluff Creek Bigfoot video has long regretted his involvement.
Filmed in 1967 in Northern California, the Patterson-Gimlin film has long remained the most hotly debated and tantalising piece of footage ever recorded in relation to the Bigfoot phenomenon.

The video, which offers a clear view of a large bipedal ape-like creature walking along the creek bed, soon became world-famous and attracted the attention of Bigfoot enthusiasts and critics alike.

Patterson himself sadly passed away back in 1972 which means that Bob Gimlin, who sold his share of the rights to the film to another researcher for the measly sum of $10, is now the only person left alive who knows what really happened that day.

The level of harassment and abuse he has since received over the footage however has left him wishing that he had never agreed to take part in the original expedition in the first place.
"It ruined me," he said. "They'd come driving in my driveway all times of the night and go ‘Bob! We want to go out Bigfoot hunting.' My wife was a teller at a savings and loan institution. Of course, she was sitting right there and the public would come in and make smart remark."

"This went on and on and on until she come home crying. She'd say, ‘I'm not tough enough.' A couple times we were going to split up over this."

Despite these problems however Gimlin still maintains that he knows what he saw that day.

"I can understand why they don't believe in it - because I didn't believe it either. But I saw one. And I know what I saw. And I know it wasn't a man in a suit. It couldn't have been."



Source: News.com.au | Comments (368)




Other news and articles
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #359 Posted by Merc14 8 years ago
He isn't wearing a big costume that had to weigh nearly 100 pounds.  Strange that you couldn't reach that conclusion yourself.
Comment icon #360 Posted by PrisonerX 8 years ago
You should tell that to the guy who linked it.  Also, I'll take that as an admission by you that the two walks are indeed different, like I've stated. 
Comment icon #361 Posted by Merc14 8 years ago
When I put on my flight gear, comprised of a harness, G-Suit, vest with survival gear, inflatable vest, helmet, pubs, pistol, dry suit in winter and water, my gait shifted from the norm.  That the man's stride may be slightly different while wearing a massive costume should not surprise anyone .  That said I don't see much difference at all, in fact it is a unique stride peculiar to this  large man yet the two are incredibly similar to each other, I hadn't realized how similar until psyche posted that video comparison and I find it very damning evidence against the creature being anyt... [More]
Comment icon #362 Posted by aquatus1 8 years ago
**Again, I will remind people to can the snide comments, and focus on the arguments.**
Comment icon #363 Posted by Podo 8 years ago
While the Patterson film is likely either a hoax of a trick, I still think it's the best video to date of a sasquatch. Why? Because we're still debating it to this day. Not just us, either; people all over the place still use it and analyze it. Whether it is a hoax or not really doesn't matter, considering how singularly influential the video is to this subject matter. And, if it is a hoax, it's certainly a phenomenally done hoax, considering it has confused multiple generations of individuals and scientists. Bravo, Patterson and Gimlin, bravo. You may not have created what you set out to crea... [More]
Comment icon #364 Posted by Sir Wearer of Hats 8 years ago
But I did one of those DNA family heritage thingies and it could tell me that in my genepool swam some Celts and the odd Angle or Jut. So why couldn't it say "and there's some gigantopithicus" given that gigantopithicus is another species entirely and not just a local flavour of Homo sapiens sapiens?
Comment icon #365 Posted by Carnoferox 8 years ago
Gigantopithecus would be incapable of breeding with Homo sapiens. They are looking more for Neanderthal DNA, of which they have found none.
Comment icon #366 Posted by Hammerclaw 8 years ago
You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Andre the Giant had a big head, too.
Comment icon #367 Posted by Sir Wearer of Hats 8 years ago
My point still stands, if they can tell me I've Irish and Welsh roots from a DNA test, surely they can tell if there's something like Homo Neanderthalis in there.
Comment icon #368 Posted by kmt_sesh 8 years ago
Closed for Moderator review.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Recent news and articles