Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[HarryHenderson]

Top down. Were you there with Bipto as honcho?

He had just recently 'abdicated' his authority (if not his ownership) as I took the position, if I remember that right. I can't say Bipto was part of the problem near as much as he wasn't part of the solution. I mean considering it was still his board and stuff. I lost a lot of respect for Bipto for his blatant indifference. Anyway, just to be clear, my reference to 'top' was indicating Vella.

Gimlin doesn't give a damn about anything Roger ever said to anyone. It's his story now.

The surrounding story and "facts" of the PGF are being rewritten by Gimlin and his followers.

You know that if that's true - and I don't believe you're saying it maliciously or dishonestly or without merit - then Gimlin needs to either be the stand-up-guy and tell the whole truth and take his licks like a man, or be publicly 'called out' (by somebody besides BH) NOW while he's living for being the charlatan he really is. Given he's been GONE for 39 of the 43 years of the PGF, Patterson has been way too easy a target. It's time the other half of that 'partnership' actually became THE MAN he's been pretending to be all along. It's almost funny that he's (Gimlin) gladly taken credit for it when its discussion is 'all good', yet literally runs and hides the minute his part gets questioned or disputed. He has definitely mastered the art of taking the good without having to take the bad - and I don't care how many times his wife has threatened him with divorce over it. Which I've ALWAYS thought that was a 'ruse' anyway. It just never rang true. If she ever actually contemplated divorcing him over all the PGF hoopla, she'd have done it.

 

[WGBH]

. I lost a lot of respect for Bipto for his blatant indifference.

Such a perfect description of Bipto. Well done.

 

[Óðinn]

Gimlin doesn't give a damn about anything Roger ever said to anyone. It's his story now.

The surrounding story and "facts" of the PGF are being rewritten by Gimlin and his followers.

It appears Gimlin was trying to "set the record straight", while the settin's good. I think the MK Davis massacre thing lit a fire under him. He single handedly saved his "last" interview. I wish the interviewers were properly prepared, but they were too busy kissing Bob's butt. All the important questions were avoided. Good thing Bob volunteered anything of value.

If Gimlin is lying, he's real good. Especially since he made it clear that Roger stiffed him re the PGF yet never let the cat out of the bag. Sounds like Gimlin's wife wasn't too happy about it either. I don't see a confession coming anytime soon.

 

[HarryHenderson]

...I don't see a confession coming anytime soon.

And that is the bottom line, he's not going to confess anything. As far as Gimlin is concerned, the PGF 'story' was-what-it-was, is-what-it-is, and will remain so until he dies. Maybe after he dies his wife will finally get that divorce he's used as his 'cover' all these years. And yes I'm aware my posted pleadings above were just wishful thinking.

 

[William Parcher]

Al DeAtley told Greg Long that the PGF earned $200,000. That was a hell of a lot of money in 1967/68.

You will find Bigfooters who say that Roger didn't make anything from the film, say that he broke even after expenses, or say that he put it all back into further research and searches.

You now have evidence that both Gimlin and DeAtley said that the film earned a lot of money. A whole lot of money.

 

[LTC8K6]

John Green & Rene Dahinden paid him $1500 in January 1968. That was a lot of money, and that was just one deal.

 

[Óðinn]

Al DeAtley told Greg Long that the PGF earned $200,000. That was a hell of a lot of money in 1967/68.

You will find Bigfooters who say that Roger didn't make anything from the film, say that he broke even after expenses, or say that he put it all back into further research and searches.

You now have evidence that both Gimlin and DeAtley said that the film earned a lot of money. A whole lot of money.

Yep. Which makes Gimlin's participation puzzling. Doesn't sound like he ever had a burnin' love for Roger. So why would he have taken part in the hoax, if not for a piece of the action? To do his good buddy Roger a favour? For kicks? Or didn't he have the nards to respond after Roger stiffed him? And why did Roger stiff him? Pretty risky considering Gimlin could have spilled the beans at any time. Roger acted just like it was his film and Gimlin had no claims. Odd behaviour if Gimlin was a cohort. IMO, Gimlin's role in the PGF is the fly in the ointment.

 

[William Parcher]

Yep. Which makes Gimlin's participation puzzling. Doesn't sound like he ever had a burnin' love for Roger. So why would he have taken part in the hoax, if not for a piece of the action? To do his good buddy Roger a favour? For kicks? Or didn't he have the nards to respond after Roger stiffed him? And why did Roger stiff him? Pretty risky considering Gimlin could have spilled the beans at any time. Roger acted just like it was his film and Gimlin had no claims. Odd behaviour if Gimlin was a cohort. IMO, Gimlin's role in the PGF is the fly in the ointment.

There is another way to look at it. Gimlin was on the hook for lying to the world just the same as Roger. They were "partners" in telling lies and even fraud. For Gimlin to spill the beans (at any time including present) means that he confesses to lying. I was a liar. I looked at you with a straight face and told you a premeditated and calculated lie that was motivated by money. I actually had to tell a bunch of lies which made up the one big lie about the film. Well, when it became clear that I would not be making much money from the hoax I had to continue lying because I didn't want people to know that I was a liar. Roger knew that if Gimlin spilled the beans he would be cutting his own throat so to speak. Even worse, the honest reason for spilling the beans was that he wasn't getting his share of the fraud. Two guys successfully rob a bank and later on one of them goes to the police because he got stiffed on his share of the money. Doh! LOL.

We do not know if Gimlin lied to his wife in 1967. Judy, Roger and I are going to look for Bigfoot down at Bluff Creek. Honey, I'm telling you the honest truth when I say that Roger and I filmed a genuine Bigfoot down there in the California mountains. I know people are ridiculing and poking fun at you and me now and I'm really sorry, but baby, I swear it's true.

 

[William Parcher]

They were there from Oct. 1st to Oct 21st or 22nd? wow. Seems like a long time.

That's a long time to borrow a guy's horse. Gimlin has already said that he took Heironimus' horse to Bluff Creek. We even have it on film. Will he now go on the record to say that BH loaned out Chico for 3 weeks?

Throughout the interview, the hosts and Gimlin talk about "his horse". Never do they ask or mention that it actually was BH's horse.

Let me borrow your personal horse to go on a Bigfoot hunt down in the mountains of California. I'll bring it back as soon as we film one, or in 3 weeks, whichever comes first. Thanks dude, you're swell.

 

[Óðinn]

There is another way to look at it. Gimlin was on the hook for lying to the world just the same as Roger. They were "partners" in telling lies and even fraud. For Gimlin to spill the beans (at any time including present) means that he confesses to lying. I was a liar. I looked at you with a straight face and told you a premeditated and calculated lie that was motivated by money. I actually had to tell a bunch of lies which made up the one big lie about the film. Well, when it became clear that I would not be making much money from the hoax I had to continue lying because I didn't want people to know that I was a liar. Roger knew that if Gimlin spilled the beans he would be cutting his own throat so to speak. Even worse, the honest reason for spilling the beans was that he wasn't getting his share of the fraud. Two guys successfully rob a bank and later on one of them goes to the police because he got stiffed on his share of the money. Doh! LOL.

So you think that Gimlin didn't have the hootspa to stand up for his share? Still pretty ballsy of Roger to cut him out. No honour among thieves, I guess. But your bank robbing analogy doesn't quite compute. Yeah, a bank robber isn't going to the cops if he gets cheated out of his share, but Gimlin wouldn't go to jail for fraud if he didn't get paid and these guys didn't lay low after the crime. Also if Gimlin was "in on it" in the 1st place, then Roger had to rely on Gimlin's honour to protect the lie, in spite of getting stiffed. No honour from Roger and BIG honour from Gimlin. Which still sounds like excuses to explain his role in the PGF. In all likelihood Gimlin's merely an exceptional liar, but why he didn't cash in still remains a mystery to me.

 

[GT/CS]

So you think that Gimlin didn't have the hootspa to stand up for his share? Still pretty ballsy of Roger to cut him out. No honour among thieves, I guess. But your bank robbing analogy doesn't quite compute. Yeah, a bank robber isn't going to the cops if he gets cheated out of his share, but Gimlin wouldn't go to jail for fraud if he didn't get paid and these guys didn't lay low after the crime. Also if Gimlin was "in on it" in the 1st place, then Roger had to rely on Gimlin's honour to protect the lie, in spite of getting stiffed. No honour from Roger and BIG honour from Gimlin. Which still sounds like excuses to explain his role in the PGF. In all likelihood Gimlin's merely an exceptional liar, but why he didn't cash in still remains a mystery to me.

Who says he hasn't been cashing in? We don't know what agreement he may have with Ms. Patterson.

 

[William Parcher]

So you think that Gimlin didn't have the hootspa to stand up for his share? Still pretty ballsy of Roger to cut him out. No honour among thieves, I guess. But your bank robbing analogy doesn't quite compute. Yeah, a bank robber isn't going to the cops if he gets cheated out of his share, but Gimlin wouldn't go to jail for fraud if he didn't get paid and these guys didn't lay low after the crime. Also if Gimlin was "in on it" in the 1st place, then Roger had to rely on Gimlin's honour to protect the lie, in spite of getting stiffed. No honour from Roger and BIG honour from Gimlin. Which still sounds like excuses to explain his role in the PGF. In all likelihood Gimlin's merely an exceptional liar, but why he didn't cash in still remains a mystery to me.

There are a variety of ways that I could explain why Gimlin did what he did even without getting any (or much) money.

...but Gimlin wouldn't go to jail for fraud if he didn't get paid and these guys didn't lay low after the crime.

I'm not entirely sure that Gimlin would not have had liabilities even if Roger had not paid him. Of course I'm speculating on all of this but my ideas aren't impossible. Gimlin may have feared a lawsuit from DeAtley. Confess to the hoax and Al sues you for the thousands that he "invested" in the Patterson and Gimlin search for Bigfoot. You mean I paid for a fake Bigfoot? I'll see you in court, you idiot.

Would theaters or magazines sue Gimlin because he now says it was all a hoax?

There are other possible scenarios to explain things. You just need to have a creative imagination (without imagining impossibilities).

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There's always the old " If you tell a lie long enough, you actually begin to believe it .. "

Might be the case here...

 

[Óðinn]

There's always the old " If you tell a lie long enough, you actually begin to believe it .. "

Might be the case here...

Might be the case for Bob H too.

 

[GT/CS]

Might be the case for Bob H too.

If we start listing all the folks who lie about bigfoot until they believe their lies we'll be listing for days.

 

[rockinkt]

If we start listing all the folks who lie about bigfoot until they believe their lies we'll be listing for days.

Perfectly put.

 

[rockinkt]

There are a variety of ways that I could explain why Gimlin did what he did even without getting any (or much) money.
<snip>

I agree.

Also, one has to keep in mind that a lot of the proceeds from Legion Halls, Rod & Gun Clubs, School gymnasiums, and Rotary, Lions, (insert favorite club here) were a couple or five bucks per head - cash - per viewer.
One can obtain and successfully hide and distribute large amounts of cash in such cases.
Gimlin could have been the happy recipient of such cash payoffs with no-one the wiser. Even if he complained he was not getting enough or no money - Patterson would not be able to counteract with stating he made cash payments to Gimlin without implicating himself in tax evasion to whit: unreported income.

 

[River]

There are a variety of ways that I could explain why Gimlin did what he did even without getting any (or much) money.




I'm not entirely sure that Gimlin would not have had liabilities even if Roger had not paid him. Of course I'm speculating on all of this but my ideas aren't impossible. Gimlin may have feared a lawsuit from DeAtley. Confess to the hoax and Al sues you for the thousands that he "invested" in the Patterson and Gimlin search for Bigfoot. You mean I paid for a fake Bigfoot? I'll see you in court, you idiot.

Would theaters or magazines sue Gimlin because he now says it was all a hoax?

There are other possible scenarios to explain things. You just need to have a creative imagination (without imagining impossibilities).

This has been talked about before, but I speculate that Patterson or DeAtley may have required NDA to be signed when this was filmed. That would certainly legally obligate Gimlin to his story. I still think an interview with Heironimus and Gimlin in the same room is an excellent idea. (while theyre both still around)

 

[rockinkt]

This has been talked about before, but I speculate that Patterson or DeAtley may have required NDA to be signed when this was filmed. That would certainly legally obligate Gimlin to his story. I still think an interview with Heironimus and Gimlin in the same room is an excellent idea. (while theyre both still around)

In Canada - a contract is not legally binding if it relates to a criminal act.
Therefore - nobody could be held to a NDA in the case of a fraudulent act or conspiracy.

Anybody know whether this holds true in the US of A?

 

[mikeyx]

In Canada - a contract is not legally binding if it relates to a criminal act.
Therefore - nobody could be held to a NDA in the case of a fraudulent act or conspiracy.

Anybody know whether this holds true in the US of A?

I've never seen you and Kitakaze in the same place. What exactly are you up to?