BFRO / Official BFRO Question and Answer / Archives / 04-22-2009 / Patterson and Gilman interviews

Topie: Patterson and Gilman interviews
January 26th, 2009 02:37 PM
ravellette I am not doubting that Patty was real however, why would Patterson in his interview say twice that Gilman's horse his horse and pack horse took off but in the Gilman interview, he said his horse never left.

Patterson also stated later that Gilman took off on his horse to follow Patty.

Question is Why tell it twice that the horse took off when it didn't.

The leg that is said to be injured by scientist. I wonder if Gilman **** at it and grazed the leg?

It looks to be more like a wound as the hair stands up there.

Now it would seem to be a cover up for fear of being prosecuted for injuring the animal.

Just curious and is my own opinion.
January 26th, 2009 02:51 PM
dksac I've never seen a bullet wound look like that. If one occurred during the filming why is no reaction to it shown? It s Gimlin. I suspect both were in a state of shock.
January 26th, 2009 02:54 PM
ravellette I still question the need to listen to all four with John Green. John even picks up on it in his interview with Gilman after Patterson Died.
January 26th, 2009 03:08 PM
Bossburg ravellette: What interviews are you talking about? Where did you see them and who quoted them?

I think many of the 'facts' you have read are not quite facts. Bob Gimlin did not fire his weapon. The film has been disected for the past 40 years by many knowledgeable people. If you want to go with the fringe stories that depict odd behavior and unfounded truths, please do so elsewhere. We do not subscribe to these stories and will not allow them on the forum.

January 26th, 2009 03:15 PM
ravellette I don't Bossburg, I just listened to the interviews and both stories are different.

Sorry about the opinion I mentioned just wondered why the stories about the horses differed.
The interviews where on the ***************** site under interviews and the interviews where done by mr green.
January 26th, 2009 04:10 PM
Bill Boqs First off, it's GIMLIN.

It's hardly a remarkable phenomenon -- in the business of accident and crime scene reconstruction -- that two people with altogether different visual perspectives on the same event will not offer accounts that are perfectly congruent in every detail. Different aspects of the occurrence will be given greater or less emphasis depending on where a particular witnesses' attention was focused. Some critical details may be missed completely. That much said , Patterson and Gimilin are both quite certain about what they saw (and both would probably agree that Patterson lost control of his horse). Additionally, the "adrenalin factor" (or "state of shock" noted by dksac) may well have affected perceptions -- and recollections -- of the central event.

Bob Gimlin's credibility has been tested more extensively (and more needlessly) than anyone else's in the modern history of squatching. I doubt there's anyone who's been raked over the coals by skeptics and conspiracy theorists more than he has. On the issue of the alleged wounding of Patty, I don't think he has any reason to fudge or fabricate. If he had taken a shot he would have admitted it; killing a sasquatch wasn't illegal or, at the time, particularly blameworthy (heck, it was one of the stated objectives of the then-recent Slick expedition). And speaking only for Yours Truly, I've read the allegations about Patty's supposed flesh wound, I've studied the critical sequence from the film itself and I remain absolutely and completely unpersuaded. I just don't see the evidence.
January 26th, 2009 04:15 PM
ravellette I was more intersted in the interview with both P&G (Gimlin) sorry my error.

I am not doubting any of it, just wondered why P wasn't corrected by G during the interview.

Yes maybe Adrenalin had everything to do with it.

Just a curious mind who listened to the interviews and hearing them differ that's all.
January 26th, 2009 04:59 PM
Bossburg I just read a transcript of the Bob Gimlin/John Green interview. It's the same exact recollection that I've heard Bob tell others many times. He does correct a number of 'facts' that had been stated by articles and reports about the situation that happened at Bluff Creek. Roger did not get bucked off his horse, Rogers horse and the pack horse left the immediate scene, Bob kept ahold of his horse and had his rifle in hand - never once pointing it at the creature. This all happened in a matter of seconds with more than one thing happening at a time.

Oh, how we all wish Roger Patterson was still alive so we could ask detailed questions and hear his story. And maybe we could say, hey Roger are you sure Bobs horse left with your horse or was it the pack horse. He might just correct himself - or he may say, I don't remember now. In the whole scheme of things I really don't think it makes any difference.

January 26th, 2009 05:13 PM
AlanF I got to go with Bossburg and Bill Bogs on this one. They are looking at a real sasquatch and it's not relevant what the horses did I wouldn't remember either considering what I was looking at. As for the bullet wound theory, hogwash! No other piece of film has been dissected frame by frame as much as this one has. There is absolutely NO evidence that Patty was hit by a bullet from THAT encounter. There isn't a living thing that would take a 180 grain 30/06 slug and not break stride. Even if he had shot it so what? To this day in virtually every place its not illegal to kill a sasquatch since you can't be prosecuted for killing something that doesn't exist in the eyes of the law. I wouldn't kill one and no one I know would either partly because I don't believe in it and partly because I don't think you'd get out the woods alive if you did it.

The film and the man are the same as they were then just as honest and just as real. Bob Gimlin got the short end of the stick after Roger died and Roger's widow gave the rights away to someone else. He had every reason to try and hurt someone for that but the man just couldn't and still doesn't alter the truth.

January 26th, 2009 05:21 PM
ravellette I agree with everything you guys are saying, just opened a discussion about the interviews. Sorry sometimes my words don't come out the right way.

Didn't mean to anger anyone here.

I do believe, I have seen the proof.
January 26th, 2009 06:32 PM
AlanF wrote:
There isn't a living thing that would take a 180 grain 30/06 slug and not break stride.

Not True. A guy I know shot a cow elk right behind its front shoulder(kill shot), broadside with his 30/06 from 100 yards away and it didnt even flinch. He reloaded and fired a second shot before it finally took off running to its final resting place. When he got to it he discovered that he had hit it both times and it was like the first shot didnt even phase it. And it was only a cow. Just imagine a Bull elk or a sasquatch.

Now im not saying that Bob or Roger shot at Patty, but what I am saying is that if they did that there is a possibility that they could have hit it and it just muscled through and made it out of the camera shot until it found a nice place to lay down and enjoy its last hours of life. THAT'S ALL IM SAYING. ITS POSSIBLE.
January 26th, 2009 07:36 PM
Bossburg OK - end of 'could have shot it' conversation. I know that's all you were saying but we do have rule about no gun talk because it leads to all the what if's and how big, etc., etc.,

Case in point.

January 26th, 2009 09:21 PM
AlanF wrote:
Roger's widow gave the rights away to someone else.

Just a quick note. Roger's widow still owns the rights to the film. It was the rights to still photos that were given to Rene Dahinden and I believe that's now in the hands of his son Eric.
January 26th, 2009 09:57 PM
Wheellug I'm unsure what others point to as the leg injury.
When I view the clip, I see a lint that is '7' shaped go across the screen
It moves from right to left. At one point intersecting on the thigh a the leg is moving forward. Thats my only guess.
January 27th, 2009 08:46 AM
Wheellug wrote:
I'm unsure what others point to as the leg injury.
When I view the clip, I see a lint that is '7' shaped go across the screen
It moves from right to left. At one point intersecting on the thigh a the leg is moving forward. Thats my only guess.

There is a rather large bulge in the right thigh that many researchers attribute to a herniated muscle. I believe this is the "injury" being discussed in this thread.
January 27th, 2009 10:56 AM
Wheellug That may be the one and same.. or not..
I was trying to review it frame by frame when I saw it.
When you see a large bulge on the thigh, take a close look.
Back up a frame, and you will not see it on the thigh, but look to the right
and you will see a fuzzy "7" shape. If you continue backing up the frames you
can track it across.
Just seems to fit.