Jump to content


Photo

Bob Heironimus And Bob Gimlin's Friendship


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#41 Gigantofootecus

Gigantofootecus

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,962 posts

Posted 04 August 2011 - 01:59 PM

So let's examine the idea since it is quite worthy of consideration. If Gimlin outs the PGF as a hoax when it was new for publicity and financial gain, he brings a few things on himself. Firstly, he tanks any friendship he had with Patterson. I think their friendship was sincere and every person I have spoken to who knew these men personally has said they were united in their drive to strike it rich. Ironically, you'd think if they wanted to get rich so bad, they wouldn't mind screwing each other over for money. Well, that is what Roger did, so why didn't Gimlin blow the whistle? I think he did not do that because of this combination...

- Still put importance in his friendship with Patterson.

- Apathy

- No desire to bring the infamy and unwanted attention of being a hoaxer.

- Did not want to flick the tiger's beans and bring the rain of pain that DeAtley and all his resources cold bring.

- Knew Patterson would pass soon and that when he did, he could claim his stake much easier without having to have conflict with Roger.

So how about now? Gimlin could come foreward after all this time as Heironimus said he asked of his old friend. He could reasonably expect to get some amount of money to sell his story. But this again has significant consequences...

- He alienates and deeply wounds throngs of people who have devoted themselves, their lives, their expendable income, their emotional support to what the film started. Bigfootery is a subculture with a strong fanatical fringe and Gimlin not only could become a pariah, he could expect unhinged and unpredictable people to harass him for the betrayal they feel.

- He could bring serious litigation from DeAtley (who was able to get his father's company out of the red with the PGF and start his own empire with the hundreds of thousands made from barnstorming the film across North America), Patricia Patterson who still makes money from the film, and Eric and Marten Dahinden for their ownership and interest in the film.

- He bears the shame of being branded a hoaxer and a fraud that unlike Heironimus, lived the charade for decades and publicy elicited belief in him and the hoax. A man's legacy is a powerful driving force and no one wants to be remembered as a fraud and a charlatan.

So what is to weigh against that? Short-lived financial gain vs eternal worship and glorification as an "American hero" by an adoring fanbase?

Interesting motives for Gimlin not coming clean. So what was Bob H's motives for ratting out his buddy? $$$/fame?
  • 0
"I'm probably the worst person this could have happened to." Roger Patterson

#42 Bigfoothunter

Bigfoothunter

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,121 posts

Posted 05 August 2011 - 11:30 AM

he confronted Patricia Patterson at Roger's funeral before his friend was even in the ground telling that it was time to settle up.


Any other source for the above statement other than Long's book?
  • 0

"Such is the Bigfoot skeptic. He'll tell you everything you don't know about a subject that you know much better than he does."      DWA/2013

 

In my world ... "The laws of nature cannot be violated - the laws of nature cannot be
changed - the laws of nature require no enforcement"

 

"A person who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the man doing it."

 

 

 


#43 Thepattywagon

Thepattywagon

    Yowie

  • Banned
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 05 August 2011 - 12:16 PM

Good question, Bigfoothunter. I've always had a problem associating this sort of behavior with Gimlin, who has taken the high road in many other respects, IMO.
  • 0

#44 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,827 posts

Posted 06 August 2011 - 12:23 AM

So let's examine the idea since it is quite worthy of consideration. If Gimlin outs the PGF as a hoax when it was new for publicity and financial gain, he brings a few things on himself. Firstly, he tanks any friendship he had with Patterson. I think their friendship was sincere and every person I have spoken to who knew these men personally has said they were united in their drive to strike it rich. Ironically, you'd think if they wanted to get rich so bad, they wouldn't mind screwing each other over for money. Well, that is what Roger did, so why didn't Gimlin blow the whistle? I think he did not do that because of this combination...

- Still put importance in his friendship with Patterson.

- Apathy

- No desire to bring the infamy and unwanted attention of being a hoaxer.

- Did not want to flick the tiger's beans and bring the rain of pain that DeAtley and all his resources cold bring.

- Knew Patterson would pass soon and that when he did, he could claim his stake much easier without having to have conflict with Roger.

So how about now? Gimlin could come foreward after all this time as Heironimus said he asked of his old friend. He could reasonably expect to get some amount of money to sell his story. But this again has significant consequences...

- He alienates and deeply wounds throngs of people who have devoted themselves, their lives, their expendable income, their emotional support to what the film started. Bigfootery is a subculture with a strong fanatical fringe and Gimlin not only could become a pariah, he could expect unhinged and unpredictable people to harass him for the betrayal they feel.

- He could bring serious litigation from DeAtley (who was able to get his father's company out of the red with the PGF and start his own empire with the hundreds of thousands made from barnstorming the film across North America), Patricia Patterson who still makes money from the film, and Eric and Marten Dahinden for their ownership and interest in the film.

- He bears the shame of being branded a hoaxer and a fraud that unlike Heironimus, lived the charade for decades and publicy elicited belief in him and the hoax. A man's legacy is a powerful driving force and no one wants to be remembered as a fraud and a charlatan.

So what is to weigh against that? Short-lived financial gain vs eternal worship and glorification as an "American hero" by an adoring fanbase?


Gimlin has no-showed for events before so I doubt he keeps it very high on his priority list. If it all ended for him tomorrow I don't think he'd lose any sleep over it.

I'm also sure he's been branded a hoaxer enough times in his life already for him not to care what others think by now.

Finally, Heironimus has already outed everybody publicly and the world still doesn't care- no big lawsuits, no giant news scandals, nobody losing their financial security, etc. So I don't exactly think Gimlin is having any deep emotional conflicts and fears over any of this.
  • 0

#45 Bigfoothunter

Bigfoothunter

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,121 posts

Posted 06 August 2011 - 09:01 AM

Gimlin stayed avoided the circuit for the longest time, thus what has been said about him not seeking attention is correct. It has not been Gimlin who sought out to be at these events, but rather the other way around.

And I want people to know that Gimlin and Bob H could be called friends, but what is the definition of 'friend' being used here. I hear people often using the term 'friend' when talking about people that they know who belongs to an organization that they do, but it doesn't mean they are 'friends' in the sense that they come into each others homes. I have acquaintances here and I have friends and I try to separate the two. I had friends at work and called them such, but I can say that this was as far as it went. If I saw them in public I would say hello to them. I may even acknowledge them to others as they being a friend of mine, while knowing they were not a friend that I could count on out of the realm of my association with them. So all I am saying is that people may want to consider this when discussing the relationship between Bob H and Gimlin.
  • 0

"Such is the Bigfoot skeptic. He'll tell you everything you don't know about a subject that you know much better than he does."      DWA/2013

 

In my world ... "The laws of nature cannot be violated - the laws of nature cannot be
changed - the laws of nature require no enforcement"

 

"A person who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the man doing it."

 

 

 


#46 Washingtonian

Washingtonian

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 188 posts

Posted 06 August 2011 - 08:33 PM

Yes, I think that this whole idea of "friends" is being distorted into something that it is not.

Unfortunately there are some who like to fluff things all out of proportion and then declare it as fact when it is fiction.

For example, the idea that Roger made lots of money is fiction, the idea that Roger was a con-man is fiction, the accusation that Roger was a hoaxer is fiction, the scenarios that have been promoted over and over again with these ideas as the base of all of his actions are reprehensible.

And the same goes for Bob Gimlin, the accusations that he is or was greedy is fiction, the claims that he was part of a hoax or was a hoaxer himself is fiction, to insinuate that he is a liar when he states clearly that only Roger and he were at Bluff Creek that day is reprehensible.

I've been told that since they (Roger and Bob specifically) are not members of this forum then they do not have the same "protection" as others who are members. Since when is a public forum a protected place for those who want to make disparaging statements about anybody who may or may not be members of that forum?

The same kinds of fluff and fiction has been leveled at John Green.
  • 1

#47 Bigfoothunter

Bigfoothunter

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,121 posts

Posted 07 August 2011 - 12:09 AM

I've been told that since they (Roger and Bob specifically) are not members of this forum then they do not have the same "protection" as others who are members. Since when is a public forum a protected place for those who want to make disparaging statements about anybody who may or may not be members of that forum?

The same kinds of fluff and fiction has been leveled at John Green.



I understand. Its funny that Roger and Bob can be be inferred to as liars by using other words that mean the same thing and yet when the same is said about one's view about Bob H ... here come the edits from the mods.

Maybe Bob H is an honorary member. :blink:

Edited by Bigfoothunter, 07 August 2011 - 12:17 AM.

  • 0

"Such is the Bigfoot skeptic. He'll tell you everything you don't know about a subject that you know much better than he does."      DWA/2013

 

In my world ... "The laws of nature cannot be violated - the laws of nature cannot be
changed - the laws of nature require no enforcement"

 

"A person who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the man doing it."

 

 

 


#48 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,478 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 06:46 PM

If I were a person that was still a proponent of the PGF, I would strongly desire to understand and get my head around the following, particularly if I wanted to continue thinking Bob Heironimus and his family and friends deceived the world with his claim of being Patty...

"I know Bob. He's been a friend of mine for as long time, but as far as I'm concerned, he was not there that I know of, and I don't think he was there at all. And he probably tryin' to make a buck. These guys are coming out of the wall saying the've been in a suit down in Norrthern California."

"I'd say the story Bob has come up with is pretty far-fetched as far as I'm concerned. You know, I've confronted Bob on that. I've said, 'Hey, what's going on?' But he won't talk about it. We're still friends. He just lives a little ways from me. I've worked with him and I've done things with Bob. I've rode horses with him. But this thing he's telling all the people around that he was in a suit in Northern California, it kind of just don't make sense to me."

"I used to trust Bob a lot, but then lately him and the whole family kind of prevaricates. They think things. You know, I don't make statements against my friends or neighbours, but this thing is kind of out of proportion as far as I'm concerned."


Bob Gimlin to Greg Long - September 18, 2001. MoB, p. 422

Specifically, I would be having a real hard look at the following questions...

1) Why did Bob Gimlin say he used to trust Bob Heironimus a lot until Heironimus came forward?

Heironimus has been claim to have been Patty as verified by witnesses in Yakima as early as 1970. Bob Heironimus and Bob Gimlin worked for years together at the Noel Pepsi Corporation in Yakima. According to plant manager Mike Trammel, Gimlin and Heironimus being both a part of a hoaxed Bigfoot film was common knowledge amongst employees. Anyone who has ever lived in a small town knows that you can't keep these kinds of things from getting around. Secrets are a small town's bread and butter.

How could Gimlin ever say he greatly trusted Heironimus when Gimlin could not have been unaware that all that time Heironimus was confirming he wore a Bigfoot suit for a hoax by Roger Patterson?

2) Given the above circumstances, how could the two men have been friends for a long time?

3) Given the above circumstances, plus the fact that when Long recorded his conversation with Gimlin on September 18, 2001, Heironimus had already made his claim publicly and submitted to a polygraph, how could these men still consider each other friends?

4) Why does Gimlin say the whole Heironimus family "kind of prevaricates"?

Gimlin knows these people. He knows Opal, he knows John Miller, he knows Glenda, he knows Howard. Prevaricating is just another way of saying that someone is being deceptive. How would Gimlin know the Heironimus family, Opal, Howard, Glenda, John, etc are being deceptive?

5) Given all the above, as a PGF proponent, do you feel Gimlin is telling you the entire story? Also, do you think he is hiding anything or being deceptive in any way at all regarding Bob Heironimus and his family?

Even when I revert my mind to my former PGF proponent mode and disregard what I know now, I could not in my heart say I fully accept what Gimlin is saying when I take into account his own stated thoughts and feeling about Bob Heironimus and the fact that we have undeniable proof that at least indirectly, Heironimus was involved with the PGF and supplying Gimlin for the trip.
  • 1
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#49 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 06:57 PM

If I were a person that was still a proponent of the PGF, I would strongly desire to understand and get my head around the following, particularly if I wanted to continue thinking Bob Heironimus and his family and friends deceived the world with his claim of being Patty...
...
"I used to trust Bob a lot, but then lately him and the whole family kind of prevaricates. They think things. You know, I don't make statements against my friends or neighbours, but this thing is kind of out of proportion as far as I'm concerned."[/i][/size][/b]

one interpretation would be that he used to trust Bob to keep the secret.
  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#50 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,478 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 07:01 PM

And the same goes for Bob Gimlin, the accusations that he is or was greedy is fiction, the claims that he was part of a hoax or was a hoaxer himself is fiction, to insinuate that he is a liar when he states clearly that only Roger and he were at Bluff Creek that day is reprehensible.

I've been told that since they (Roger and Bob specifically) are not members of this forum then they do not have the same "protection" as others who are members. Since when is a public forum a protected place for those who want to make disparaging statements about anybody who may or may not be members of that forum?


Washingtonian, this British Columbian would like to know of you could lean into the microphone and gives us a clear answer on whether or not the following is reprehensible...

"This idiot actually passed a lie detector test on national TV declaring that the PGF was fake.

He's lied about it for so long he actually now believes the lies himself.

He will do anything to make money or to be on TV. This is his only claim to fame.
He could have supported the truth of Patty.

Why did he go against the film being of a real BF when he had to know that it was true at one time?"

"He has also lied for so long he probably believes it himself along with being a sociopath.

He'll do anything and say anything for money and publicity."

"Then we have this jerk telling lies on the Lie Detector show. That show didn't last very long because it's few episodes didn't hold up any better than a lie detector does in a court room."

"I just noticed the creep doesn't ever change his shirt. Look at those 2 videos, he's a bum! He lies to make a couple bucks and he still can't afford a new shirt."


Also, was Rene Dahinden disparaging of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin?

one interpretation would be that he used to trust Bob to keep the secret.


I would like to see an alternate interpretation that comes anywhere near to being as simple and logical as that. How can Gimlin have trusted Heironimus so much under any other circumstance when you live in a small town where even where you work everybody considers you guys to have pulled off a hoax and the general consensus amongst the people known to these men is to not report it for fear of what might happen to either men?
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#51 JohnC

JohnC

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 07:03 PM

1) Why did Bob Gimlin say he used to trust Bob Heironimus a lot until Heironimus came forward?

Because he did trust him more before Bob starting talking nonsense.



2) Given the above circumstances, how could the two men have been friends for a long time?

Sometimes nice people,and long time friends tolerate a lot from each other.


3) Given the above circumstances, plus the fact that when Long recorded his conversation with Gimlin on September 18, 2001, Heironimus had already made his claim publicly and submitted to a polygraph, how could these men still consider each other friends?

See # 2


4) Why does Gimlin say the whole Heironimus family "kind of prevaricates"?

See # 2,and consider the word .....Speak or act in an evasive way.
He did say Bob would not talk about it.


5) Given all the above, as a PGF proponent, do you feel Gimlin is telling you the entire story? Also, do you think he is hiding anything or being deceptive in any way at all regarding Bob Heironimus and his family?

Nope,Grimlin is not telling the whole story, I am sure there is a lot of "none of your buisness" element there, but its probably not really revelant to the "story", and he does not feel like putting it through scrutiny is necessary, probably out of respect for his misguided friend Bob.

Edited by JohnC, 01 February 2012 - 07:04 PM.

  • 1

"There is nothing in cryptology that violates any established laws,laws of physics,or laws of nature,what it violates are some peoples sensibilities, so its really,that's more of a social problem rather than a scientific problem." Dr.J.Richard Greenwell

 

Show me the monkey suit!-me


#52 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,478 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 07:52 PM

1) Why did Bob Gimlin say he used to trust Bob Heironimus a lot until Heironimus came forward?

Because he did trust him more before Bob starting talking nonsense.


So that would mean he hasn't trusted him since at least 1970 since Heironimus can be confirmed to have been making the claim since at least that time by multiple witnesses. That's of course no counting the witnesses to the suit in the trunk and the same suit handled by family members at his home in 1967.

2) Given the above circumstances, how could the two men have been friends for a long time?

Sometimes nice people,and long time friends tolerate a lot from each other.


Yeah, I have a friend or two I put up with a lot from. So why doesn't Gimlin say that Heironimus has been doing this for a long time. Why does he act like it was a recent thing and theorize that someone put him up to it and that the family is lying about the things they claim to have seen (such as the suit)?

4) Why does Gimlin say the whole Heironimus family "kind of prevaricates"?

See # 2,and consider the word .....Speak or act in an evasive way.
He did say Bob would not talk about it.


But Heironimus will gladly talk about it. Not just talk about it alone. He will gladly talk about it with Gimlin there. Evening Magazine tried to make this happen and Gimlin stonewalled them. NatGeo tried to do this and again Gimlin stonewalled them.

Dude, Heironimus will totally talk about it with Gimlin there. Gimlin is the one who won't talk about it if cameras and Heironimus are involved.

5) Given all the above, as a PGF proponent, do you feel Gimlin is telling you the entire story? Also, do you think he is hiding anything or being deceptive in any way at all regarding Bob Heironimus and his family?

Nope,Grimlin is not telling the whole story, I am sure there is a lot of "none of your buisness" element there, but its probably not really revelant to the "story", and he does not feel like putting it through scrutiny is necessary, probably out of respect for his misguided friend Bob.


Thank you for confirming what I already knew given my former PGF believer status. I know very well that believers also realize that Gimlin is totally hiding things and being evasive under skeptical questioning. I also know what kind of excuses and explanations I'd search for to maintain the belief. It's none of our business and I'm sure it's nothing is not something I would have thought of. I'd really want to know just what the hell Gimlin is hiding if I myself as a believer acknowledged he is in fact hiding things regarding Heironimus. I also would start to think "misguided" is not a word I should use for "Heironimus", but rather "misjudged" had I waved him off prior to that as some deceptive schmuck.

Maybe you owe it to yourself a lot more to really give this some sincere thought rather than It's none of my business and I'm sure it's nothing. How about that?
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#53 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 08:57 PM

Where can I read about this?

From what I had read, Dahinden was the one who pushed Gimlin into the lawsuits and going after the money- which Gimlin did but ultimately got fed up with it and dumped his rights on Dahinden for $10. Dahinden then proceeded to file even more lawsuits, so this idea of Dahinden complaining about the greed of Gimlin seems a bit out of place.

If Gimlin did this and Dahinden was with him then I can only speculate that Dahinden coerced him into doing it, since he clearly coerced him into pursuing lawsuits. Dahinden was basically dirt poor and Gimlin was financially comfortable, so IMO the intent leans towards Dahinden in these financial pursuits.


It should be remembered that right up until the time Patterson was dying, Gimlin hated Roger for the way Patterson had treated him. Gimlin has said this. He said "would have strangled him" if he'd had the chance. Now, of course, he was exaggerating. But Gimlin's motivation was pretty much the same as Bob Hieronimus'. Dahinden just pulled the trigger on Gimlin's anger. When Gimlin got a little money from it (we really don't know how much, but he has been on television several times), he gave Hieronimus a taste, cause he knew how he felt. They were friends, and they were sort of in the same boat. I don't know all the factors, whether Greg Long had any hand in it, but it appears that "Greatest Hoaxes" tv show pulled Hieronimus' trigger.
  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#54 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,133 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:26 PM

So, trusting someone less now than you did in the past is supposed to be another reason for suspicion?? That's sad. The aspersions that try to indicate a PGf hoax seem awfully desperate sometimes... :ph34r:

Edited by xspider1, 01 February 2012 - 09:35 PM.

  • 0

From the Centre for Fortean Zoology, 'Statement of Core Belief':
9. That the CFZ should be an international brother/sisterhood of like minded people who work together, mindless of differences of creed and culture, to push back the boundaries of human knowledge, for no other reason than that it is a good thing to do...

 

 


#55 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,478 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:59 PM

Or you could put the broom away and try actually thinking about it in a way that addresses the bizarre level of connection between the G in the PGF and a person who was close friends with him, was involved in Patterson's Bigfoot movie that same year, had his horse at Bluff Creek under Gimlin's butt, and whose family and friends witnessed and some even handled a suit in the trunk of his mother's car after being gone three days.

It's not hmmm, yes I trusted him more so before, but less so now. Try giving some manner of serious thought as to why one of the guys behind the Bigfoot film ever said he greatly trusted the only man on Earth to ever claim publicly to be in it. How can that be when they live in a small town and even worked together and further than that, sweet mother, they live nine doors from each other and still counted each other friends in 2001 even after Heironimus came forward?

How the heck does that work, XS? By all means, please tell us an alternative to Heironimus being trusted by Gimlin for being a friend and for covering for him that makes anywhere near as much sense.

Heironimus lied badly to Long covering his involvement in a film we know he was in.

A movie filmed in the South Fork by Roger Patterson about Bigfoot? Why, no, I'm afraid I know nothing about that. I guess you would have to speak with Gimlin. I don't know anything about that at all.

Dude, seriously...

Posted Image

He totally covered for Gimlin, XS. Why did he do that? Why did Gimlin trust him so much before he came forward?

Heironimus can not be denied to have covered for Gimlin and Gimlin can not be denied to have said he trusted his long time friend greatly before he said he was in the film. And that's "desparate".

To people not in belief culture, that has hoax written all over it.

Posted Image

Is Gimlin hiding something, XS?

Edited by kitakaze, 01 February 2012 - 10:00 PM.

  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#56 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,133 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 11:19 PM

Or you could put the broom away and try actually thinking about it...

'blah blah, blah blah blah'

Put the broom away?? wth? You lost me right off the bat with that one. Gimlin doesn't seem to be hiding anything but, maybe another 44 years will change all that.

Edited by xspider1, 01 February 2012 - 11:21 PM.

  • 0

From the Centre for Fortean Zoology, 'Statement of Core Belief':
9. That the CFZ should be an international brother/sisterhood of like minded people who work together, mindless of differences of creed and culture, to push back the boundaries of human knowledge, for no other reason than that it is a good thing to do...

 

 


#57 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,478 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 12:12 AM

Let's be real, XS. I was one of you too long and I know the situation too well. I lost you at "I don't believe in Bigfoot and my position is the PGF was a hoax." You don't lose something you never had.

Bob Heironimus covered Bob Gimlin by denying to an investigator asking all the right questions that he had any involvement in a film we know he was a cast member of. heironimus didn't know that Long had the cast photo from Larry Lund. Why'd Bob cover his friend Bob, XS?

Gimlin and Heironimus worked together for years. Everyone at Noel Pepsi Corporation knew Heironimus and Gimlin were in a hoaxed famous Bigfoot movie together. Even the fricking boss knew. How can Gimlin have trusted someone so much under those circumstances?

Yeah, that buddy of mine, Bob, what a guy. We've been friends forever. He's been telling people I'm a hoaxer for decades, but I trust him a lot. :wacko:

Edited by kitakaze, 02 February 2012 - 12:13 AM.

  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#58 JohnC

JohnC

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 01:00 AM

"Yeah, I have a friend or two I put up with a lot from. So why doesn't Gimlin say that Heironimus has been doing this for a long time. Why does he act like it was a recent thing and theorize that someone put him up to it and that the family is lying about the things they claim to have seen (such as the suit)?"

Maybe because Gimlin felt no need to drag his old friend through the mud,and because he honestly believed someone put Bob up to it,promising fame and money. Maybe Gimlin was disappointed, but did not feel like participating in such a futile and damaging debate, orchestrated by some outside influence with little or no regard for the players.


"Thank you for confirming what I already knew given my former PGF believer status. I know very well that believers also realize that Gimlin is totally hiding things and being evasive under skeptical questioning. I also know what kind of excuses and explanations I'd search for to maintain the belief. It's none of our business and I'm sure it's nothing is not something I would have thought of. I'd really want to know just what the hell Gimlin is hiding if I myself as a believer acknowledged he is in fact hiding things regarding Heironimus. I also would start to think "misguided" is not a word I should use for "Heironimus", but rather "misjudged" had I waved him off prior to that as some deceptive schmuck."

I don't care what he is hiding,I am sure whatever he is hiding, is aspects of both his life,and Bobs that having nothing to do with what they filmed. I do not anything "key" to what you see in that film is being hidden. The only thing I am confirming, is there is definitely a "none of your business" line being crossed here.
It may be hard for you to understand, from your "critical" point of view, but some people maintain a level of respect for their friends, the old, once a friend, always a friend thing. Just because Bob chose to lie, and attempt to get some more benefit out of the event,and betray Gimlin, does not mean Gimlin would stand, and shout liar,and provide just the entertainment and controversy that someone was looking for.
He knows what he filmed,he has confidence in it, and let it stand on its own. I am sure he felt disappointment in Bob,and simply chose the high road.

Edited by JohnC, 02 February 2012 - 01:01 AM.

  • 0

"There is nothing in cryptology that violates any established laws,laws of physics,or laws of nature,what it violates are some peoples sensibilities, so its really,that's more of a social problem rather than a scientific problem." Dr.J.Richard Greenwell

 

Show me the monkey suit!-me


#59 denialist

denialist

    Bukwas

  • Members
  • 379 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 02:17 AM

Gimlin looks like Paul Newman in Hombre...which coincidentally came out in 67'.

Posted Image
  • 0

#60 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,050 posts

Posted 02 February 2012 - 04:18 AM

kitakaze wrote:

And that's "desparate".



Posted Image



kit...you drew a line for the 'lower-arm bone' which is 13-degrees out-of-parallel with Patty's lower-arm.

Could you please provide an example of this happening with a suit.....in the real world?


And, the line for the 'upper-arm bone' is resting comfortably on the upper-edge of Patty's upper-arm.

Could you please provide an example of this happening with a suit.....in the real world?



Let's be real, XS.



Let's... :)



kitakaze wrote:

He totally covered for Gimlin, XS. Why did he do that? Why did Gimlin trust him so much before he came forward?



Bob totally wasn't Patty...

Posted Image

Edited by SweatyYeti, 02 February 2012 - 04:25 AM.

  • 0
A message from Peter Byrne....to Pat Beaton:
The last time I met Patterson, at his home in Tampico, WA., the poor fellow was dying, sitting in his back garden on a wooden chair, a veritable skeleton...his fatal illness being Hodgsons disease. He was thoroughly depressed and very angry at the skepticism with which science - and many people - viewed the footage, 
and one of the last things he said to me was..."You know, Peter, we had an opportunity to shoot that thing. Bob had a loaded rifle on it. Maybe that's what we should have done. Then people would believe us."