Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

River said:
That film is what is known as "the second reel" or whats left of it. I spoke to Bob Gimlin about it on the phone. He said he shot the film of Patterson casting the tracks at Bluff Creek on the same day they allegedly had the encounter. I posted a small snippet of that in MP3. You or others can deny they claimed it to be film of the foot casts, but then you have to explain why we see those casts that were on the film presented as evidence. Do you agree those casts Patterson is holding in front of a tree are the two presented from the alleged encounter? Or you just want to deny Patterson ever claimed those came from Bluff Creek? Not sure where you're going with this. The documentation of Krantz, where he describes Patterson making a film of himself casting tracks -- is most likely the same film we see. In other words, they most likely lied about the timing of the alleged event. (many have suspected this)

Anyhow, Bob says that film was shot at Bluff Creek, and that he personally shot the film of Patterson casting the tracks.
Click to expand...

When did Gimlin say this?
 
River said:
That film is what is known as "the second reel" or whats left of it. I spoke to Bob Gimlin about it on the phone. He said he shot the film of Patterson casting the tracks at Bluff Creek on the same day they allegedly had the encounter. I posted a small snippet of that in MP3. You or others can deny they claimed it to be film of the foot casts, but then you have to explain why we see those casts that were on the film presented as evidence. Do you agree those casts Patterson is holding in front of a tree are the two presented from the alleged encounter? Or you just want to deny Patterson ever claimed those came from Bluff Creek? Not sure where you're going with this. The documentation of Krantz, where he describes Patterson making a film of himself casting tracks -- is most likely the same film we see. In other words, they most likely lied about the timing of the alleged event. (many have suspected this)

Anyhow, Bob says that film was shot at Bluff Creek, and that he personally shot the film of Patterson casting the tracks.
Click to expand...

So your evidence that the casting movie was shot at Bluff Creek after Patty strolled by is "Bob said so."?

We certainly see some sort of trackway in one clip. There's no indication in the clip of who might be filming, or of a location.

We certainly see Roger looking like he is making a cast of a track, and displaying some casts, in a few stills.

The trackway in the short clip, and the tracks in the casting stills, do appear to be the same tracks.

Patterson is certainly standing near some trees holding a couple of casts in some still images. I can't tell what the location is, though. I also can't tell the timing as related to the filming of the PGF.

Roger is probably not filming the casting or display scene, unless he is using a tripod.

If there is a movie of the casting scene, or of the display scene, I can't recall seeing it, only stills.

Whether the trackway, the casting scene, or the cast display, have anything to do with with the movie scene is up for debate, as far as I have ever heard.

There are certainly more than a few people with ideas about what is related to what, and when and where things were filmed.

But I'm not taking Bob's word for much, since I'm certain the whole story of the PGF was fabricobbled together as a promotional exercise.

There's no reason to believe any of the story at all.

It's fake.

The only reason I quote things Bob or Roger said is to refute the story. It's not because I believe what they said.

Bob certainly said, in the 67 radio interview, that he took the reloaded camera and went off to look for tracks or other creatures.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
So your evidence that the casting movie was shot at Bluff Creek after Patty strolled by is "Bob said so."?

We certainly see some sort of trackway in one clip. There's no indication in the clip of who might be filming, or of a location.

We certainly see Roger looking like he is making a cast of a track, and displaying some casts, in a few stills.

The trackway in the short clip, and the tracks in the casting stills, do appear to be the same tracks.

Patterson is certainly standing near some trees holding a couple of casts in some still images. I can't tell what the location is, though. I also can't tell the timing as related to the filming of the PGF.

Roger is probably not filming the casting or display scene, unless he is using a tripod.

If there is a movie of the casting scene, or of the display scene, I can't recall seeing it, only stills.

Whether the trackway, the casting scene, or the cast display, have anything to do with with the movie scene is up for debate, as far as I have ever heard.

There are certainly more than a few people with ideas about what is related to what, and when and where things were filmed.

But I'm not taking Bob's word for much, since I'm certain the whole story of the PGF was fabricobbled together as a promotional exercise.

There's no reason to believe any of the story at all.

It's fake.

The only reason I quote things Bob or Roger said is to refute the story. It's not because I believe what they said.

Bob certainly said, in the 67 radio interview, that he took the reloaded camera and went off to look for tracks or other creatures.
Click to expand...

You're actually looking way too deeply at the issue. All that really matters is: They presented this film as evidence of an alleged encounter. That film happens to show that the foot casts made were fake. Game over. Whether or not Gimlin actually shot the film or not does not really change this. It matters that he claims to have shot it, sure because it shows he is lying about the entire encounter. We know they lied. It's only important that he connect himself to that moment. He is tied to the fakes by his own admission. He cannot claim "he didnt know".
 
Well, we don't really need any film to know that the casts are fake. Even that is looking too deep. :)

There's not much else to do regarding the PGF, though.

All we can do these days is delve into the minutiae.
 
River said:
You're actually looking way too deeply at the issue. All that really matters is: They presented this film as evidence of an alleged encounter. That film happens to show that the foot casts made were fake. Game over. Whether or not Gimlin actually shot the film or not does not really change this. It matters that he claims to have shot it, sure because it shows he is lying about the entire encounter. We know they lied. It's only important that he connect himself to that moment. He is tied to the fakes by his own admission. He cannot claim "he didnt know".
Click to expand...

So you called Bob in Yakima?
 
River said:
....... He cannot claim "he didnt know".
Click to expand...

I saw an interview with Gimlin some years back in which he pretty much claimed just exactly that: he didn't know if he'd been brought along by Paterson as a stooge. That it was possible that Paterson had staged a hoax without his (Gimlin's) knowledge, and just had him along as a witness to add credence to the story. Possible, in his view, but not likely, as I remember it.

Now, just ask me for a reference, or a link. I haven't the slightest idea where I saw it, who did the interview, which TV station it was.....nothing. Sorry. Put that down as just another anecdote in the whole long PGF succession of anecdotes. I suspect it must have been before the era of bigfoot conferences and the like, which have turned into a handy little source of income for our hero. They've removed any incentive for him to debunk the PGF story.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't know how that film of Patterson casting the footprints has anything to do with the film of Patty.

We know Grover Krantz said RP told him that they manufactured tracks for a documentary they were making. This short clip could easily be that manufactured film.
 
In the 1992 interview with Green, I note that Gimlin says he was supposed to be 1/3 partner.

1/3 partner in what? The bigfoot documentary? Why would he get 1/3 of that?

If he meant the PGF, such an arrangement would be unlikely to be made before there was anything to make money with.

So presumably this 1/3 deal was made after the film was developed and proved to be valuable?
 
MikeG said:
I saw an interview with Gimlin some years back in which he pretty much claimed just exactly that: he didn't know if he'd been brought along by Paterson as a stooge. That it was possible that Paterson had staged a hoax without his (Gimlin's) knowledge, and just had him along as a witness to add credence to the story. Possible, in his view, but not likely, as I remember it.

Now, just ask me for a reference, or a link. I haven't the slightest idea where I saw it, who did the interview, which TV station it was.....nothing. Sorry. Put that down as just another anecdote in the whole long PGF succession of anecdotes. I suspect it must have been before the era of bigfoot conferences and the like, which have turned into a handy little source of income for our hero. They've removed any incentive for him to debunk the PGF story.
Click to expand...

My bold.
One of the reasons I had him confirm he shot that film of Patterson. Another being to stop the footer claim of "testing or practice footage" due to Krantz documenting a phone call from Patterson where he spoke of making a cast on film.
 
Drewbot said:
Yeah, I don't know how that film of Patterson casting the footprints has anything to do with the film of Patty.

We know Grover Krantz said RP told him that they manufactured tracks for a documentary they were making. This short clip could easily be that manufactured film.
Click to expand...

It allegedly documents them making the casts that were presented as evidence of the encounter. Those casts have been copied many many times as you know. We now can prove them to be fake. The film Patterson mentions to Krantz is most likely one in the same. Many also speculate that the "walk sequence" portion may have been filmed at an earlier date than was claimed.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
I saw an interview with Gimlin some years back in which he pretty much claimed just exactly that: he didn't know if he'd been brought along by Paterson as a stooge. That it was possible that Paterson had staged a hoax without his (Gimlin's) knowledge, and just had him along as a witness to add credence to the story. Possible, in his view, but not likely, as I remember it.

Now, just ask me for a reference, or a link. I haven't the slightest idea where I saw it, who did the interview, which TV station it was.....nothing. Sorry. Put that down as just another anecdote in the whole long PGF succession of anecdotes. I suspect it must have been before the era of bigfoot conferences and the like, which have turned into a handy little source of income for our hero. They've removed any incentive for him to debunk the PGF story.
Click to expand...

The X Creatures - Episode 4: Shooting the Bigfoot

(from 2:30)

 
Drewbot said:
Yeah, I don't know how that film of Patterson casting the footprints has anything to do with the film of Patty.

We know Grover Krantz said RP told him that they manufactured tracks for a documentary they were making. This short clip could easily be that manufactured film.
Click to expand...

And then there's this...



Ah, hold the phone...


 
kitakaze said:
And then there's this...

[qimg]http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/7e57f1f3-0b01-443e-9ece-94e8bf9db06b.png[/qimg]

Ah, hold the phone...

[qimg]http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo103/bmjfk63/start%20of%20track%20pour_zps4cbqf2mh.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo103/bmjfk63/rocks%20around%20the%20track%20pour_zpshue52n3s.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


I recognize that top frame as being a flipped around (mirror image) of what we know as the casting footage. Did you find more of the alleged second reel or is this from another film of Pattersons? (referring to bottom two images)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom