William Parcher said:
Stuff your Bigfoot myth perpetuation desperation where the sun don't shine. So, Bob Gimlin would rightfully sue William Parcher for libel if he weren't such a nice guy? Are you representing the soul and legal fortitude of Bob Gimlin?
Gimlin better not venture forth with suits against anyone. He was party to a filmed hoaxing of a wild gigantic stinking hairy ape living in northern California in 1967. May the Lord help him.
Have you read his statement through his attorney? He probably had enough of groundless accusations like yours 38 years ago. I'll ignore your rudeness for now, but it's clear who's desperate to post a comment like that.
That film processing timeline is so screwed-up that a Jedi Knight couldn't fix it.
Speaking of Knights, here's Roger:
RogerKni Posted on: Jun 22 2005, 11:05 PM
Replies: 397
Views: 10,906
I've just revised the second paragraph of item I from the version I posted two posts above, to account for a Thursday mailing date. Now that BH is claiming an Oct. filming date, I thought harder about what his claimed timeline implies. BTW, I wonder if the idea that it was shot in Sept. was something Long encouraged BH to accept (to avoid an impossible film development timeline, perhaps), and that BH and/or his advisors now feel was a mistake that reduces his credibility. (Because of the red foliage in the film, and because it would make no sense for P&G to hand over the film and suit to BH if there were no announcement imminent.)
===================================
Another mistake BH made in following Patterson’s script was that he said he’d mailed the film at all (p. 350-51). That is what Patterson told Hodgson and the press, or anyway what they remember and reported him saying; but it’s impossible, because the Post Office couldn’t have delivered the film to DeAtley in time. BH’s time-line implies (counting backwards from the interrupted Saturday morning apple-shopping of his mom and the Saturday night visit by P&G after fleeing torrential rains early that morning) that the film was shot Thursday. The shadows in the film indicate it was shot in the afternoon. If so, BH would have handed it to the Eureka PO, 65 miles away, partly over a very rough road, near closing time that day. Next-day delivery was out, since neither Eureka nor Yakima were postal hubs. And so was two-day delivery, the Yakima PO being closed Saturday. Gimlin plainly remembers going to an airport, probably Murray field, and having it air-shipped by charter. Patterson may have been speaking in shorthand, to save his breath, by saying “airmail†(the word used in the paper the next day, not "post office")—or he may have thought of a charter air shipment as a kind of airmail. Anyway, he unintentionally thereby set a trap that BH has stepped into.
Forum: 'The Making of Bigfoot' Book · Post Preview: #238090
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4395&st=380&#entry238090entry238090
I see by my post it was ten hours, not nine. My bad. I had the book before me at the time. De Atley said he frequently chartered planes. It wasn't very expensive in those days.
'Contradictions' is an understatement. Gimlin said that Petterson's horse didn't fall on him. Patterson said it did, and showed a bent metal stirrup to support his claim. No LAL, if P&G agreed on the details of the event it would support things, not lead to suspicions. The fact that they disagree on things soon after the event can only make matters worse. Patterson could have improved his scam if he made sure that everything Gimlin said would match him and also be rational in a big picture of the proposed filmed situation.
A script, IOW. That would have been seized on at once. Gimlin was busy trying to control the horses and Patterson may have added a bit of drama. Too bad the only other witnesses, the horses, couldn't tell what they were so afraid of.
The original may not be missing. It may be hidden. 'Someplace safe' is some place outside of the hands of skeptics. Modern examiniation probably wouldn't show 'tampering' any more than first examinations? Did those first examiners hold the film in their hands and look with magnifying lenses to see if there had been splicing? I do not recall any of the original witnesses of the film stating that they had physically (or otherwise) examined the 'original' film for any creative splicing. They seem to have all just watched the presented film itself (as it rolled through the projector) for improprieties.
It was examined by at least one film expert whose name I will have to dig up. Splices wouldn't show up on first generation copies, I suppose. It could be somewhere safe to protect it from further damage. It's valuable.
When was the first time that the hernia/costume bulge was mentioned in publicly-accessible media?
It showed up on the enhanced version. Nelson and Meldrum examine it on LMS, which was copyrighted 2003. So, sometime before that.........do your own homework, will you?
Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus are the Bermuda Triangle of the PGF. These men were friends in Yakima, Washington 1967. Heironumus is now saying that it was all a big hoax and that he was the guy in the Bigfoot costume filmed by Patterson. That is a quite bold thing to claim with Gimlin still alive. I use the word 'bold' because Gimlin is still alive and could possibly present information that would truly show that Heironimus was not at all involved in the Bluff Creef incident whatsoever. Of course, Patterson is deceased.
Heironimus was nothing but a neighbor who thought he saw a way to cash in. Friends? Where are you getting that?
If he's so bold why didn't he blow the whistle before Roger died?
Gimlin can't show that Bob H wasn't part of the scam.
And Bob H can't show there was a scam.
Gimlin and Heironimus still live on the same street in Yakima, Washington... no more than 1000 feet from each other. They no longer speak to each other. Why?
Would you speak to someone who's done what he's done?
Gimlin says that he doesn't think the film was a hoax (or if it was, he had no idea that 'Patty' was a guy in a costume) and that the whole thing was a legitimate filming of a Bigfoot. Heironimus says that he was the guy in the costume that Patterson provided. He goes on to say that Patterson and Gimlin even had to personally help him get into the costume at Bluff Creef before the staged filming.
He says, he says.
My personal feeling is that Gimlin would avoid a live recorded public debate with Heironimus concerning the PGF at all costs. But also, that Heironimus would be willing to debate Gimlin in a similar situation. I could be wrong.
Gimlin explained at the Bellingham conference why he's being so patient. He considers himself a Christian. He must have taken the "turn the other cheek" part seriously.
