Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Crowlogic

Bob Heironimus And Bob Gimlin's Friendship

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

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.

Of the PGF's history, it's two greatest players have been Al DeAtley and Rene Dahinden. In 1973 Dahinden began masterminding what would be nearly a decade of maneuvers that would allow him to gain 51% ownership of the PGF that exist to this day passed on to his sons Eric and Martin Dahinden. Dahinden manipulated what he felt was Gimlin's greed and apathy to get his alliance in going after the film rights. What Dahinden did not do was coerce Gimlin into the singularly appalling act of using the occasion of Roger's funeral to demand his 1/3 share of the PGF that Patterson and DeAtley had edged him out of after he no longer wanted to put in the work touring the film with Patterson and DeAtley. You can read on p. 319 where Dahinden recounts how Gimlin told him that he approached Patricia at the funeral to demand money but she rebuffed him and how every time he spoke with Gimlin he was complaining about how Patterson and DeAtley cut him out, but he wouldn't take the steps necessary to do anything such as contact Walter Hurst in Hollywood to get copies of the original Bigfoot Enterprises contract drawn up.

Dahinden did indeed outsmart Gimlin into getting his rights for $10 (a formality and a break for Gimlin in which he had Dahinden take over all legal expenses which he no longer could afford to pay in the quest for film ownership), but that does not make Gimlin some hapless innocent. Gimlin was edged out and probably because he had little taste for being paraded around in some fool wig as a completely fictitious character created by Roger which was why Roger replaced him with an impostor, yet Gimlin could have chosen any other time to broach the issue of the money he wanted than when Roger's body was not even in the ground and his widow and three fatherless children are in grief and laying him to rest.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

There is an important question to be addressed regarding the friendship between Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus. On December 5, 1998 Greg Long first contacted Bob Heironimus after numerous people had said he was in the suit in Patterson's film and Long was given the photo from Larry Lund showing Bob and his brother Howard as cast members in Roger's South Fork movie. In this recorded interview Bob Heironimus not only denied and evaded questions about the PGF, he also denied any involvement in Roger's South Fork movie repeatedly after being questioned about it. Here's an excerpt...

I knew Heironimus was one of Patterson's amateur actors in his documentary shot on the the South Fork. I inserted a mild hint of disbelief in my voice, as a test: "So, you're saying you didn't pal around with him (Patterson)?" "No, I didn't. Uh-uh." "For a period of time in the 1960s he was trying to make a Bigfoot documentary - " "Uh-huh," he said, projecting disinterest. " - on the South Fork; and there's Bob Gimlin, and a guy named Jerry Merritt, and some other guys, were playing roles in this movie. Are you aware of that movie?" "Yeah, I know something about that. Uh..." A nervous twicth rippled thorugh his voice. "What do you know about that movie?" I said, increasing the pitch of my voice slightly. "Well, I - you know," he fumbled, "I think more than a few people knew about that movie after it come out, you know."

Heironimus was referring to the Bluff Creek footage. I sensed he was trying to deflect my attention away from Patterson's South Fork documentary. "Well, there's a famous movie of the Bigfoot walking across this open area down in Norther California, there's that movie - " "Uh-huh." Apprehension was in his voice. " - and then there was another movie he was doing on his own in the Ahtanum Valley. He was using a cameraman from a local television station, I think, to do this movie." Slowly, he said, "Uh... huh." And Bob Gimlin and Jerry Merritt were two guys who were in this movie." Suddenly, I sprang the question on him: "Were you part of tha movie?" "No," he answered flatly.

Merritt had told me that Heironimus was in the documentary. He had identified Heironimus's image in the photo of the six cowboys that Lund had given me. There was Bob Heironimus sitting on a horse. "Are you aware of that movie he was - ?" "No," he said. Then he caught himself, "It kinda, you know, rings a bell." He added, "I'm not really sure, you know." "Uh-huh," I said. MoB, p. 146-147

Bob then continues to deny involvement in the South Fork film and clumsily evade questions about it and the PGF. Bob is shown on the far right in this cast shot here...

Lund-Horsemen+in+Yakima.JPG

In the middle left still from the movie he is the second to last rider and the bottom left he is the leftmost at the campfire with the black jacket...

8eed5c421.jpg

Footage showing Bob in Patterson's movie can be seen from the 00:35 mark here...

In the interview Heironimus tells Long that it would be better for him to talk to Gimlin and that he can't say more than that. In every way he is acting like he is protecting Gimlin. What can not be denied is that until Heironimus came forward, he and Gimlin had been longtime close friends who lived next to each other and had once worked together. By Heironimus' account the friendship ended when Gimlin forced him to come foreward alone saying he had been too long living the lie. Gimlin suggested that he thought Heironimus had been tricked into making a false accusation and that as far as he knew, no one else was at Bluff Creek. So this begs the question: Why did Heironimus deny any involvement in the South Fork film? Why did he deny his connection to Patterson? Why did he tell long that he couldn't tell him more and then tell him to go speak to Gimlin?

I think the reason why is that at this point when Bob and Bob were still close friends, he was keeping his role secret to protect Gimlin when an investigator came looking for the truth.

*bump*

And before this gets lost in a derail, would anyone like to tackle what inspired Bob Heironimus on December 5, 1998 in his first recorded interview with Greg Long to not only deny involvement with Roger Patterson and the PGF, but his role as a cast member in Roger's South Fork film if he was not indeed trying to protect Bob Gimlin who at that point by the admission of both men were still very good friends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Of the PGF's history, it's two greatest players have been Al DeAtley and Rene Dahinden. In 1973 Dahinden began masterminding what would be nearly a decade of maneuvers that would allow him to gain 51% ownership of the PGF that exist to this day passed on to his sons Eric and Martin Dahinden. Dahinden manipulated what he felt was Gimlin's greed and apathy to get his alliance in going after the film rights. What Dahinden did not do was coerce Gimlin into the singularly appalling act of using the occasion of Roger's funeral to demand his 1/3 share of the PGF that Patterson and DeAtley had edged him out of after he no longer wanted to put in the work touring the film with Patterson and DeAtley. You can read on p. 319 where Dahinden recounts how Gimlin told him that he approached Patricia at the funeral to demand money but she rebuffed him and how every time he spoke with Gimlin he was complaining about how Patterson and DeAtley cut him out, but he wouldn't take the steps necessary to do anything such as contact Walter Hurst in Hollywood to get copies of the original Bigfoot Enterprises contract drawn up.

Dahinden did indeed outsmart Gimlin into getting his rights for $10 (a formality and a break for Gimlin in which he had Dahinden take over all legal expenses which he no longer could afford to pay in the quest for film ownership), but that does not make Gimlin some hapless innocent. Gimlin was edged out and probably because he had little taste for being paraded around in some fool wig as a completely fictitious character created by Roger which was why Roger replaced him with an impostor, yet Gimlin could have chosen any other time to broach the issue of the money he wanted than when Roger's body was not even in the ground and his widow and three fatherless children are in grief and laying him to rest.

Well the one running theme in Dahinden's story is that Gimlin never had any interest in pursuing anything against anybody, even though he had multiple opportunities. So IMO I believe his story about Gimlin's 'greed' is exaggerated since his actions don't match the accusation.

I think you are also exaggerating the funeral incident. The book only says that he approached her at the funeral to settle up on the rights- this could have happened at the gathering after the actual burial. It's not uncommon for people to iron out legal and property issues at these events. Your scenario of crying children and his body not in the ground yet is a little overdramatized.

And before this gets lost in a derail, would anyone like to tackle what inspired Bob Heironimus on December 5, 1998 in his first recorded interview with Greg Long to not only deny involvement with Roger Patterson and the PGF, but his role as a cast member in Roger's South Fork film if he was not indeed trying to protect Bob Gimlin who at that point by the admission of both men were still very good friends?

Well, there was probably no contract drawn up yet. No contract, no story- that's what Bob got the lawyer for wasn't it? To shop his story?

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Well the one running theme in Dahinden's story is that Gimlin never had any interest in pursuing anything against anybody, even though he had multiple opportunities. So IMO I believe his story about Gimlin's 'greed' is exaggerated since his actions don't match the accusation.

I think you are also exaggerating the funeral incident. The book only says that he approached her at the funeral to settle up on the rights- this could have happened at the gathering after the actual burial. It's not uncommon for people to iron out legal and property issues at these events. Your scenario of crying children and his body not in the ground yet is a little overdramatized.

Patterson's funeral was at Shaw and Sons Funeral Home where Patterson obituary that he recorded himself and farewell songs were played for an assembly of over 200 people. I don't care if Gimlin was asking for money there or at a gathering afterward; it's extremely poor taste. He can choose any other time. Call if he can, swing by, whatever. Not a funeral.

Well, there was probably no contract drawn up yet. No contract, no story- that's what Bob got the lawyer for wasn't it? To shop his story?

Yet there would still be no reason to deny involvement in the South Fork film. He could plausibly keep a story back for money for the PGF, but you're forgetting the big, fat fly in the ointment - Bob and Bob were still very close friends at this point. Bob H said it was Bob G's refusal to come foreward with him that caused the rift between them and that makes perfect sense. What makes no sense is that it's a fact that Bob H has been claiming to be Patty since at least 1970 and even in his and Gimlin's workplace it was common knowledge amongst the staff at Noel Pepsi Corporation yet never do you have Gimlin addressing this problem at any time. There's never any, "Yeah, this has been going on way too long. I keep asking Bob to set people straight," from Gimlin. Gimlin's side of things completely fails to take into account their relationship and Heironimus' involvement in his and Roger's Bigfoot enterprises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I don't care if Gimlin was asking for money there or at a gathering afterward; it's extremely poor taste. He can choose any other time. Call if he can, swing by, whatever. Not a funeral.

All I'm saying is that it's common- you may think it's poor taste but others don't. Some people just like to get things settled at that time to keep their minds busy. It doesn't make them horrible people just because you don't agree.

Yet there would still be no reason to deny involvement in the South Fork film.

The South Fork filming is essentially part of the same story because it's about Patterson's documentary which led into Bluff Creek. If someone were keeping quiet on a story to shop it around then there's no point in revealing any of it- especially to a guy writing a book.

yet never do you have Gimlin addressing this problem at any time. There's never any, "Yeah, this has been going on way too long. I keep asking Bob to set people straight," from Gimlin.

Gimlin's character has shown that he's always been the one to let things go rather than pursue them. This goes for virtually everything back then to present day- Gimlin has always been the one to not concern himself (unless coerced to do so). Why would this be any different? It doesn't mean he's hiding anything, it only means he's a lot more patient and tolerant than most people. Even when accused of murder and a massacre the guy kept his cool.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Gimlin was greedy?

Hell Bob G just spill the beans and reveal the 'hoax'. You'd make plenty of money there. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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?

Think of all the visceral, seething hatred the pours out of Bigfootery for Bob Heironimus and compare it to this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Apparently Bob H was prompted to go public by a television program in 1998. He contacted attorney Barry Woodward in the fall of 1998 to explore legal issues. He also wanted to notify Gimlin, to give him a chance to also go public. During that period of transition he was contacted by Long and did that first interview. Gimlin decided not to admit to the hoax. The attorney made the announcement in February of 1999, referring to Bob H as Mr. X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Gimlin decided not to admit to the hoax. HA ! :lol: Cause it wasn't/isn't a hoax.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

Or Bob doesn't out the P/G Film as a hoax...because...it wasn't a hoax. :D

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Thepattywagon

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...