Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Crowlogic

Bob Heironimus And Bob Gimlin's Friendship

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

My opinion regarding the friendship between these two guys has always been that Gimlin chose to take the high road and not cause any unnecessary strife between he and Bob H. That by no means is an admission of any part in a hoax. I just think Gimlin knows what he saw and who was and was not there that day, and is okay with the other Bob making a fool of himself.

 

 
The friendship and connection between Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus is key to understanding the true events behind the PGF and how things happened the way they did. This is what Gimlin has said of his friendship with Heironimus...
 
"I know Bob. He's been a friend of mine for a 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

 
Now that's true. Bob and Bob were friends for a very long time and there most certainly was a lot of trust between them. Heironimus trusted Gimlin enough to allow him to ride his prized rodeo roping horse Chico for what Gimlin says was an entire three weeks at Bluff Creek to look for Bigfoot. It s a fact that Heironimus and Gimlin worked together at the Noel Pepsi Corporation in Yakima. It is also a fact that Heironimus and Gimlin's manager Mike Trammel was interviewed regarding the film. He stated that he had been aware of Heironimus' role in the film for at least 10 years and that it was common knowledge at the workplace. This is the same place at which Heironimus says he was given $100 in 1980 by Gimlin after Gimlin appeared on Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World...
 
 
So at this time when Gimlin and Heironimus both work for Noel Pepsi they are close and trusted friends, but at the same time both Gimlin and Heironimus being part of the PGF hoax is commonly known amongst their coworkers. Heironimus has no reason to make up Gimlin gving him any money and it runs completely against the notion that he never received anything for his role in the film.
 
So how does Gimlin account for his longtime friend exposing his and Gimlin's involvement in a hoax? This is what he had to say about it in 2008...
 
January 26th, 2008 recording of Bob Gimlin answering questions from Bigfoot enthusiasts at at the Washington State Capital Museum program on "Giants in the Mountains: The Search for Sasquatch". 

Female Bigfoot enthusiast: "There's a man... I don't remember his last name." 

Bob Gimlin: "Heironimus."

FBE: "Yes, exactly. That claims he was the man in the suit. I don't buy his story but I just wondered what your thoughts are on him."

BG: "Well, thank you very much. Uh... I don't ever wanna try to put somebody down that's just trying to make a few bucks on the film. But, the bottom line is some think he was... I think he was... He was conned into something, I believe. That's my belief. I dunno. I know Bob Heironimus real well. I've know him for quite a few years. Uh... He's like a lot of people if he thinks he's gonna be famous and make some money. (inaudible)...things, I think. But other than that, I don't wanna say anything bad about Bob Heironimus. All I can tell you is there was no one down in Bluff Creek at that time except Roger and I."

 
 
So Gimlin is suggesting that Heironimus was coerced by someone else to claim being in the film. In 2001 Greg Long spoke to Gimlin about this and had him elaborate on it...
 
Bob Gimlin to Greg Long September 18th, 2001 on Bob Heironimus' claim of being Patty:

"Well, yeah, I can comment on that. I know Bob. He's been a friend of mine for a 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 allAnd probably he's tryin' to make a buck. These guys are coming out of the wall saying they've been in a suit down in Northern 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 to me 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 that he's telling all the people around that he was in a suit in Northern California, it kind of just don't make much sense to me"

Long asks Gimlin if he's saying Heironimus is lying.

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

Long again asks if Gimlin is saying Heironimus is lying.

"As far as I'm concerned he is."

Long then asks Gimlin why Heironimus was risking his retirement to accuse Gimlin of being part of the hoax. Gimlin suggests Heironimus is envious of his material possessions.

Long:

"Does he have a grudge against you?"

Gimlin:

"Well, I don't know if Bob has a grudge against me. Bob just screws around working for ranches and stuff and didn't save much money, and he still don't. He spends money pretty rapidly as far as I can tell."

 
 
Gimlin is extremely vague on the notion of Heironimus being at Bluff Creek saying Heironimus was not there that he knows of, not there as far as he is concerned. 
 
The actual events that lead to Heironimus going public with his involvement in the film are known and documented. Heironimus was not conned into making a false confession as Gimlin suggested. In late December/early January before going to his attorney Barry Woodward for consultation about how to come forward Heironimus went to Gimlin and told him he had decided to do so. Gimlin's reaction was to ask Heironimus to leave Gimlin's name out of his confession. This was something that would be impossible for Heironimus to do and still tell the truth about what happened. It was because of Gimlin and Heironimus' friendship that Heironimus became involved in the first place and it was Gimlin who first came to Heironimus with the offer to be in the film. It was Gimlin who was riding his horse at Bluff Creek. The following post shows exactly the events that occurred causing Heironimus to come forward...  
 
 

Late 1998/early 1999 is when the PGF poop hit the fan. It went like this...

 

December 5th, 1998

 

Greg Long first calls Bob Heironimus and confronts him about the PGF and Heironimus' involvement, including his being in the May 1967 South Fork filming which Greg Long already knew he was in...

 

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 twitch 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

 

That's Bob Heironimus denying being in Roger's documentary...

 

Rider1scans.jpg

 

 

Lund-Horsemen+in+Yakima.JPG

 

Why did Heironimus deny to investigator Greg Long being in Roger's May 1967 film? Because Long was trying to expose the film and Heironimus was protecting himself and his longtime close and trusted friend whom is his sitting next to in the above photo and lives only nine doors away from him - Bob Gimlin.

 

December 19th, 1998

 

Greg Long and his spouse drive to Yakima to attempt to speak with both Bob Gimlin and his friend Bob Heironimus. Judy Gimlin refuses them so they walk down the street to try and speak with Heironimus. Again Heironimus denies involvement in both the South Fork and Bluff Creek films and he accuses to Long, "So, you're gonna get rich off this?" Heironimus tells Long he will not speak with him further without consulting his attorney. Long is taken aback why he would want to consult his attorney.

 

This is very simple. From Bob Heironimus' point of view he does not know if either he or Gimlin did something illegal or could be sued. Heironimus' main worry was the involvement of people prominent in the community with both power and money - namely Al DeAtley.

 

December 27th, 1998

 

Greg Long contacts Heironimus for the third time that month seeking to do another interview. He confronts Heironimus that from Larry Lund he has photographic evidence of him being a cast member in Roger Patterson's South Fork film which he repeatedly denied. Heironimus again refers to his attorney, Barry Woodard.

 

December 28th, 1998

 

Day of serendipity. FOX network airs World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed in which former ANE staff Jerry Romney is fingered being in the suit, which he denies...

 

 

The timing of this show along with being hounded by investigator Greg Long prompts Heironimus that it is time to act and come forward. From his perspective he sees Greg Long and FOX TV seeking profit from the film where he has only been paid $100 by Gimlin when they both worked together for Noel Pepsi Corporation. His motivation is the same motivation that had Gimlin suing both Patricia Patterson and Al DeAtley, which Heironimus is forthright about.

 

Heironimus first approaches his friend Gimlin telling him he must come forward to which Gimlin asked he be left out of it. Heironimus then goes to his attorney Barry Woodard who arranges Heironimus' first polygraph examination.

 

December 29th, 1998

 

Greg Long contacts Barry Woodard who explains to Long that Heironimus has concerns because of the prominent people involved in the hoax (DeAtley). Long calls Woodard again on January 7th though Woodard had yet to meet with Heironimus. Between this time and January 30th Heironimus meets with Woodard, does the polygraph and Woodard releases the following statement with Heironimus maintaining anonymity...

 

January 30th 1999

 

 

Bigfoot Unzipped -- Man Claims It Was Him in a Suit 

Published in the Herald-Republic on Saturday, January 30, 1999

 

(snip)

By DAVID WASSON

YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

Yakima, Washington

 

Now comes what could be the final stomp in the 32-year-old debate.

Zillah attorney Barry M. Woodard confirmed Friday he's representing a 

Yakima man who says he wore the elaborate monkey suit in the 

Patterson-Gimlin film, and that his client has passed a lie-detector 

test to prove it.

Woodard described the man only as a 58-year-old lifelong resident of the 

Yakima Valley who approached him a few months ago after a network news 

program called questioning authenticity of the 1967 film. The man wanted 

help negotiating a deal for rights to his story, Woodard said Friday, as 

well as to explore any legal issues he might face as a result of his 

involvement in the hoax. 

"I had represented his wife about a year or so earlier on a matter 

separate from this," Woodard said. "A little while back, when questions 

about the Bigfoot film started to fester in the media again, he came to 

see me."

Woodard did not disclose the status of any deals being arranged for his 

client's story.

He did, however, provide a statement from retired Yakima police officer 

Jim McCormick, a certified polygraph examiner who administered a 

lie-detector test Thursday afternoon on Woodard's client. Results of the 

75-minute examination showed the man was telling the truth when asked 

about having worn the Bigfoot suit in the 1967 film, McCormick wrote.

 

 

 

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/cryptolist/conversations/topics/944

 

 

Heironimus and Gimlin were trusted friends. Gimlin trusted Heironimus, Heironimus trusted Gimlin. He provided Gimlin his horse and he denied involvement in a film they were both in when an investigator questioned them, accusing that investigator (Long) of trying to get rich from the film. Heironimus' greatest worry when coming forward was what DeAtley might do being implicated in the hoax. To suggest that Heironimus invented his claim because of not being paid for the use of his horse ignores that Heironimus continued his friendship with Gimlin decades after the film and revealed that Gimlin had in fact given him money having felt guilty over him being manipulated and discarded by Patterson, much the way Gimlin himself felt having been replaced by Patterson with an impostor.

 

Whether you believe Heironimus or not, the fact is that true or false, he made a confession involving a longtime friend who lived only nine doors from him. The actual documented events show something far more complex than some random nobody trying to profit off a false claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

And not only that....Bob H. said this...(about the start of the filming)...

 

1) The horse never bucked a day in it's life...it didn't know how to buck.

 

2) The horse bucked Roger off.

 

3) The horse supposedly bucked Roger off.

 

4) The horse didn't buck him off. Roger bailed off the horse.

 

 

Edited to add.....Bonus Interview.....loaded with behind-the-scene details, only the true 'man-in-the-suit' could have known... :popcorn: ...

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sure, the 2 Bobs were trusted friends. That's why Bob H felt he had some sort of entitlement. After all, he loaned Roger his horse and he wanted to be a star in his movie and he never got paid for any of it. He could taste it, but no cigar. Then he waited for Roger to die before picking thru his bones for scraps. Prove me wrong.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Heironimus is just upset Gimlin got to be the Indian.

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

^

 

And not only that....Bob H. said this...(about the start of the filming)...

 

1) The horse never bucked a day in it's life...it didn't know how to buck.

 

2) The horse bucked Roger off.

 

3) The horse supposedly bucked Roger off.

 

4) The horse didn't buck him off. Roger bailed off the horse.

 

 

Always restore the context to the quote-miners. Here from the 00:30 second mark Heironimus, MK, and Biscardi are all discussing parts of the film. MK is looking at gifs on his site and Biscardi is as well but Heironimus is not, speaking on phone from his home with no computer in front of him...

 

 

MK mentions the early part of the film with the violent shaking. Heironimus interjects and asks if he can elaborate. This is where he says that Chico was gentle, never bucked anyone, and didn't know how to buck. Between the three of these men in the format of the interview there is considerable confusion, particularly between MK in front of his computer and Heironimus on the phone. Heironimus was mistaking who was on Chico, thinking of Roger. He relates Roger's versions of events with the horse throwing him, falling on top of him, crushing the stirrup with his foot in it that he'll later produce for Al Hodgson and Syl McCoy. This is where Heironimus states that Roger was shaking the camera from horse back when he started filming. 

 

Heironimus is not telling different versions of an event saying the horse didn't buck and then the horse did buck. He's relating what he thought occurred versus the version Roger has told. This happens at the 2:00 mark. At this point MK gets confused because he's taking the Roger version Bob is relating as Bob's version. He asks Bob after Bob talks of Roger's version getting trapped under the horse...

 

MK: "So he started filming again?"

 

BH: "On foot, yes."

 

MK: "OK, well then I have no problem with that because I was just gonna show a clip that showed his own boot print on the sand."

 

Heironimus here does not know what they're looking at or what they're talking about and MK makes it more confusing because he gives Biscardi mistaken instructions what to look at. After MK goes on about what he's looking at Bob says unequivocally at the 4:30 mark...

 

BH: "I was there. The horse didn't buck."

 

Regardless that Heironimus is forgetting that it was his friend Gimlin on his horse, not Roger, he's being adamant that there was no one getting thrown from a horse during the filming. He states Roger started filming on horse back, shook the camera, bailed of the horse then continued filming on foot.

 

What Sweaty is doing is the serial quote-mining so often used. He needs the comments to be removed from context so as to convince people who don't know where to check or how to take his word for it that Heironimus is being dishonest. In that interview and as well on NatGeo Heironimus mistakenly places Roger on his horse. That is his mistake, but it's not one that equates dishonesty any more than Gimlin saying Patty's hands were swinging below her knees. 

 

Context restoration: the enemy of quote-mining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote this...and lots more...

 

 

Regardless that Heironimus is forgetting that it was his friend Gimlin on his horse, not Roger, he's being adamant that there was no one getting thrown from a horse during the filming. He states Roger started filming on horse back, shook the camera, bailed of the horse then continued filming on foot.

 

 

Re-capping... :) ...

 

 

Bob H. said this...about the start of the filming...

 

1) The horse never bucked a day in it's life...it didn't know how to buck.

 

2) The horse bucked Roger off.

 

3) The horse supposedly bucked Roger off.

 

4) The horse didn't buck him off. Roger bailed off the horse.

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^All while Roger filmed the PGF on horseback while shaking the camera around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Sure, the 2 Bobs were trusted friends. That's why Bob H felt he had some sort of entitlement. After all, he loaned Roger his horse and he wanted to be a star in his movie and he never got paid for any of it. He could taste it, but no cigar. Then he waited for Roger to die before picking thru his bones for scraps. Prove me wrong.

 

Did he loan the horse to Roger or was it to Gimlin who was breaking the horse in for him as a favour? Which version is true?

 

And entitlement from never being paid anything? If he was never paid anything and thus felt entitled, why would he ever say that Gimlin did in fact pay him 1/10 of what was owed to him?

 

BH: "Eighteen years ago at the Noel Corporation where I work, people found out about me. Four hundred people work there. Little things slipped out. They told me I should sell my story."

 

GL: "Noel?"

 

BH: "Yeah. They make Pepsi products."

 

GL: "Almost thirty-five years have gone by, Bob. Thirty-five years. You could have sold your story years ago and made some money. Why have you waited this long to tell it?"

 

BH: "It's pretty simple. I told them I wouldn't tell."

 

GL: "You told Patterson you wouldn't tell?"

 

BH: "Yeah, and I didn't. I kept my word. Two years ago (January 1999) I told Gimlin, 'It's time I made some money out of this thing. I'm blowing the whistle. I'm going to tell the truth.' He said, 'Well, don't mention my name.' Well, how could I not mention his name when he was there during the whole thing? I remember when he had done an interview for the BBC. It's where he rides through an orchard in the snow and dismounts. Well, he came up to me one day on the job. That's when he drove long haul truck for Noel. He says, 'Since you haven't got a dime out of this, I feel bad. Here's a hundred dollars.' And he shoved it down my shirt pocket. I said, 'Aw, I don't want the money. That's peanuts.' He said the BBC paid him two hundred and fifty dollars. But I really didn't believe that. Maybe twenty-five hundred."

 

GL: "Did you keep the money?"

 

BH: "Yeah. He wouldn't take no for an answer."

 

Bob is speaking about a documented event, Gimlin's appearance on Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World...

 

 

These men did in fact work together. Mike Trammel, Bob and Bob's manager, confirmed that indeed Bob and Bob being part of the hoax was common knowledge at Noel Pepsi as Heironimus had said it was and that he had known about it at least ten years. This is where manager Mike Trammel is either telling the truth or you need to have him be a nefarious colluder. Heironimus is completely honest about the entitlement and his reasons for coming forward. He first viewed Greg Long hounding him as a profiteer, another person looking to get rich from the film. Three times in one month, December 1998, Greg Long is pressuring Heironimus and questioning him. The very next day after the third time FOX airs World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed. He's had it with being played. He's not hiding him being fed up with this. Gimlin was his friend, he trusted Gimlin, he appealed to Gimlin and told him he was tired of being played. Out of friendship he's telling his friend what he's doing and why. Gimlin forces him into an impossible situation telling him to leave his name out of it.

 

 

It's crucial here that he's telling Long that Gimlin did in fact give him money having felt bad for his friend being screwed. If he wants people to think he never got paid anything at all, why is he telling people that his friend Gimlin was showing him sympathy and giving him money that should have come from Roger?

 

Bob Heironimus did not come forward when Roger died for one simple reason...

 

Bob Heironimus and Bob Gimlin's friendship. 

 

It's the same reason Gimlin paid Heironimus what he did, something that there is no purpose for Heironimus to include in his story if he is inventing it.

 

kitakaze wrote this...and lots more...

 

 

Re-capping... :) ...

 

 

Bob H. said this...about the start of the filming...

 

1) The horse never bucked a day in it's life...it didn't know how to buck.

 

2) The horse bucked Roger off.

 

3) The horse supposedly bucked Roger off.

 

4) The horse didn't buck him off. Roger bailed off the horse.

 

 

 

Recapping, blue is Bob Heironimus speaking of his direct experience, red is him relating the version of events as told by Patterson.

 

 

Show the context, expose the quote-mining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^^

 

Kit,

 

If they were friends and a hoax was done, the friend would:

 

Keep his mouth shut as to not hurt his friends.  Bob did not keep his mouth shut.

If Bob H  was paid by Bob G and they were friends this further supports the notion if there was a hoax that friend paid him something it would have kept his mouth shut.

 

Kit you would have us believe a reporter shows up and starts asking Q and the longstanding friendship does not result in this:

 

-------------RING RING RING

 

Bob G    "Hello"

Bob H    "Gimlin!  Its me Heiromy  whats up man!  Hey you are not going to believe this.  Some reporter came around trying to get me to say I was he guy in the suit.  Ha,  Do you believe that?"

Bob G  "ha   What is he doing trying to sell a book or something?   What did you tell him?"

Bob H  'What do you think I told this @#$%%^  i told him I did not know what he was talking about.  I thought I should call my lawyer and see what I might need to do to get him to stop harassing me."

Bob G  "well you know our secret"

Bob H  "yea I still love the fact we have fooled all these people. The other day I saw that guy on TV -- the footprint guy doctor Maldoon"

Bob G   "Muldrum"

Bob H  "yea that's him Muldrum going on about how what we did was real [laughs]  gotta love it"

Bob G  "well listen I will met you tonight at the watering hole and the first round is on me"

Bob H   "sounds good Buddy,  see ya then"

 

That is what would have happened had Bob H been involved with these guys in some hoax.  

You would have us believe Heronimus comes out to what?  HELP HIS FRIEND Bob Gimlin?

 

Kit, you have some kind of imagination. 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

^All while Roger filmed the PGF on horseback while shaking the camera around.

 

No, not all while. He thinks it started that way and then Patterson continued on foot.

 

Real context.

 

Heironimus reported two look backs, when only one is commonly known, and only stabilized enhancement of the opening sequence by NK Davis showed to be true. Conversely he reports only two horses when if he is lying, he should concur with the commonly known three horses. What sight Heironimus had of Patterson was from approximately 100 feet with his glass eye on the right and his left in the mask. Patterson may have been on his horse at some point and Heironimus can misremember Patterson being on his horse when it was his friend Gimlin. Heironimus can make mistakes about an event decades past.

 

Gimlin can do the same only a matter of days after the event...

 

Webster: Describe it to me, Bob.

Bob: It was a large hairy creature with arms that hang down beside

its, you know, far down on its sides, below its knees, and it was

quite ..

Webster: Do you agree with that?

Roger: No, I think Bob's a little excited here, I don't believe they

were below the knees, they were above the knees.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

^^^^

 

Kit,

 

If they were friends and a hoax was done, the friend would:

 

Keep his mouth shut as to not hurt his friends.  Bob did not keep his mouth shut.

 

Heironimus was forced by Greg Long and then cemented by the FOX program into having to come forward. At least in coming to Gimlin first and then Barry Woodard to have the polygraph administered he could do it on his own terms instead of the terms of someone he thinks is simply profiteering with the film, which is what he thought of Long's intentions at first. He gave Gimlin warning of what he had to do and Gimlin forced him into an impossible situation by asking him to exclude Gimlin from his confession. 

 

If Bob H  was paid by Bob G and they were friends this further supports the notion if there was a hoax that friend paid him something it would have kept his mouth shut.

 

It was a hundred dollars in 1980. The film continued to line the pockets of others for the two decades that followed before the events of December 1998 the pushed him into confessing. Hounded by Long and then the FOX show the day after Long's last call. That was enough after years of others profiteering with the film.

 

Heironimus was honest about giving Gimlin advanced notice and he was honest about telling that Gimlin did in fact five him money.

 

Let's say he's lying. In what way does it possibly make any sense to include in a fabricated story Gimlin giving Heironimus money? How does that benefit his story in any way?

 

Why did he deny involvement to an unknown investigator being in a film with Gimlin that we know for a fact he was in? He can easily say yes, he was in the South Fork film and no, not the PGF. He denies all knowledge of anything to Long because he's protecting himself and his friend who lives * nine * doors * away from a nosing investigator. That investigator keeps hounding him and then shows proof that he knows Heironimus was involved with Patterson, then FOX airs a show fingering another person and enough was enough. Gimlin was taking advantage of and depending on that sense of loyalty Heironimus had.

 

Why did Gimlin trust Heironimus so much if it was common knowledge at Noel Pepsi that they were hoaxers? Because for Gimlin Heironimus kept his mouth shut for decades. That has its limits and Long and FOX succeeded in pushing Heironimus past it. At least he went to Gimlin first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

Kit you would have us believe a reporter shows up and starts asking Q and the longstanding friendship does not result in this:

 

-------------RING RING RING

 

Bob G    "Hello"

Bob H    "Gimlin!  Its me Heiromy  whats up man!  Hey you are not going to believe this.  Some reporter came around trying to get me to say I was he guy in the suit.  Ha,  Do you believe that?"

Bob G  "ha   What is he doing trying to sell a book or something?   What did you tell him?"

Bob H  'What do you think I told this @#$%%^  i told him I did not know what he was talking about.  I thought I should call my lawyer and see what I might need to do to get him to stop harassing me."

Bob G  "well you know our secret"

Bob H  "yea I still love the fact we have fooled all these people. The other day I saw that guy on TV -- the footprint guy doctor Maldoon"

Bob G   "Muldrum"

Bob H  "yea that's him Muldrum going on about how what we did was real [laughs]  gotta love it"

Bob G  "well listen I will met you tonight at the watering hole and the first round is on me"

Bob H   "sounds good Buddy,  see ya then"

 

That is what would have happened had Bob H been involved with these guys in some hoax.  

You would have us believe Heronimus comes out to what?  HELP HIS FRIEND Bob Gimlin?

 

Kit, you have some kind of imagination

 

Backdoc

 

By what logic do you take away the idea that I suggest Heironimus came forward to help Gimlin? The first people Heironimus went to after Greg Long came confronting Heironimus was his lawyer and Gimlin. Heironimus' biggest worry was Al DeAtley and his power and prominence. Gimlin had left him without recourse by asking Heironimus to leave him out of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

 

We are so close and yet so far.

 

The logic here is this:  Bob's coming forward Does Not help Gimlin.  I never said it did. I said the opposite. That is the whole point, the whole big issue.

 

Some reported does not have a person on a witness stand where he is compelled by the courts to provide an answer.  Some reporter has no power over him. 

 

The Q you need to look at I feel you are missing is the definition of friendship.

 

If someone is a close friend, what would it take for them to betray a trust?

Some reporter asking Q would be laughed off by these men. They don't owe him anything.  He had no power to compel Bob H in any way to betray his friend.

 

What is the price one would take to betray a friend?  Long is not offering that price.

 

So Long "corners him"  Big deal.   What does he do get so afraid of long somehow he turns around and says, "the heck with this friendship and my role in this hoax. I better spill the beans or long will DO NOTHING TO ME"

 

Kit, in your paint my numbers picture are you really painting by the numbers here?

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Backdoc, I don't think you realize that you're not consistently following your own logic. Before you asked why they would risk not paying Bob and that this then supports Bob making everything up. Why would they risk that?

 

The friendship of Bob Heironimus and Bob Gimlin.

 

What you sorely need is some context of the actual history instead of supposing they would have done this or they would have done that. If you learned the history better, you would have known Patterson's ability to compel, sway and involve others in his great dreams and schemes. His entire adult life was spent looking for that one score that would set him for life. If at the time Bigfoot seemed the best ticket, he bent everything to that. If it was to a prop lock invention or a toy hoop, he would bend everything to that. What Roger was very good at was making promises. To his friends, to people he could ensnare in his schemes like Glen Koelling with the publishing of his book, like Ben Swanson the publisher, like Jerry Merritt, like Vilma Radford, like countless others. It was always the money's coming, real soon now, just a little bit more. He was always going to make good on those promises.

 

So it was with Bob Heironimus. Because you know so little of the actual history, you don't have an actual understanding of why Heironimus would tolerate not being paid for so long. His brother Howard was a very close friend of Roger's. For the cast members of Roger's South Fork film each of them wee promised $100. In this you can not deny that there was a film and there were actors playing roles for Roger Patterson. It was through Gimlin's friendship with Heironimus that he was brought into the Bluff Creek filming. Patterson did not do this directly as he knew it was better proposed and sold to him by a close, trusted friend. Heironimus knew Roger primarily through his brother and through Gimlin.

 

You then have to look at the history afterward. Did Bob just sit there and take it about not being paid? No, he confronted DeAtley about it at the Saddle Tree club in 1970 at a Waylon Jennings and Jessi Colter show. DeAtley brushed him off and told him to speak with Roger. As far as DeAtley was concerned, Bob was Roger's affair. Remember, this is a person who has gone on the record saying that he already knew Heironimus through Roger. How did DeAtley know Bob through Roger if he became involved only after the filming? Bob could have had the guile to threaten exposing the hoax to DeAtley when DeAtley deferred Bob back to Roger, but what you don't understand is that is simply not in Heironimus' nature.

 

So what does Roger do? He does exactly what is serial to his nature and exactly what both Howard and Bob and Bob all confirmed. The money's coming. Boy, just you wait, real soon now. They could be plied with promises because of personal relationships. Gimlin having a wife who wanted nothing to do with this Bigfoot nonsense and Gimlin running around in a wig decides to not promote the film, stay at home and expect to get the one third cut while DeAtley and Roger are slogging it with the barnstorming. Hell no for Roger and Al. Bob wants to stay home, fine. In comes impostor Bob, far cheaper to pay than one third. Gimlin had to find out about impostor Gimlin through a third person who actually saw this and then he went and tried to get paid to no avail. Gimlin waited until Roger died and then literally at Roger's funeral came to Patricia Patterson proclaiming his rights to the money which he then took her to court for.

 

In this sense Gimlin has sympathy for the run around his friend Bob has gotten. Not so much that they are going to blow any lids when it is going to cost Gimlin his marriage with his wife Judy who has had it with Bigfoot nonsense, but enough that when he does make a paid appearance in the BBC's Mysterious World with Arthur C. Clarke, he gives some of that money to Heironimus and insists he takes it. Let this question sink in on you...

 

What possible benefit is there for Heironimus to include being paid by his friend Gimlin out of his own pocket in a fabricated story?

 

So what did it take for Heironimus to come forward? It was not simply being found out. I've already detailed how in 2001 Heironimus detailed how nearly 20 years earlier at Noel Pepsi where he and Gimlin worked, he was found out by the employees there, who encouraged him to sell his story. Being found out didn't make him come forward then because of friendship to Gimlin. Something Gimlin cemented when he stuffed $100 in Heironimus' shirt pocket. That was a strong gesture on Gimlin's part and Gimlin was relying heavily on the trust he had in Heironimus to keep his mouth shut. You have to realize that this had become so well known at Noel Pepsi that even when independently interviewed Heironimus and Gimlin's manager Mike Trammel confirmed that fact.

 

This is how deeply Heironimus is connected to Gimlin and I know far too well, having once been a PGF supporter and totally convinced Heironimus was a black hat villain lying through his teeth for money, how deeply disturbing it is for believers to learn how strong that connection is. No longer once you learn those things can you idly brush Heironimus off as just another pretender, which amongst yourselves you pass around the false meme to each other that there has ever been another documented pretender. 

 

So what did it take for Heironimus to finally break silence if not simply being found out by others? For one if you want to have any semblance of human understanding, you should put yourself in Bob's shoes and imagine decade after decade of seeing this film propagate in popular culture, seeing it time after time on TV in various documentaries and commercials generating revenue, knowing that is you in that film and all you've gotten is what you consider peanuts from your friend who you know to have received far more. That's a very sore point he was sitting on for years and he said it in no uncertain words himself...

 

GL: "So two years ago (1999) you told him (Gimlin) you were going to tell your story?"

 

BH: "I told him, 'I don't give a ****. I'm telling the truth. I'm tired after thirty-five years of getting nothing out of this thing, and seeing this thing on television week after week, month after month. How many years? People are making a living off this thing. People have made a lot of money off this movie, like Pat Patterson. These Bigfoot people are making money off of it. I should be getting a little cut of that. I'm getting nothing'."

 

MoB, p 340

 

I know the mind of the believer because I was one. That last sentence there rings out black hat to them. But wait a moment, step back and think. This is a man who is being completely forthright about something the others have not.

 

"People have made a lot of money off this movie, like Pat Patterson."

 

  It was precisely this sentiment that brought Gimlin into court against Pat Patterson and Al DeAtley, something they settled out of court with and off the record for what they agreed between them to make Gimlin happy. And what had Gimlin done for the one half he was going after? He was at Bluff Creek, like Heironimus, only actually supposed to be there. He wore the wig and went on some of the original trips until his wife got fed up with it. In the deposition when he sued Pat Patterson and Al DeAtley the judge ruled that Gimlin had been an integral part including the supply of equipment and horses for the expedition. Horses!? Where did the judge get that from? Right, from Gimlin. The same Gimlin who now tells us Roger was responsible for getting the horses, including his friend Heironimus' horse. Gimlin tells the same story, my big foot.

 

It took decades of getting the shaft, having people at work prod him to come forward, years of seeing the film profit others including your close friend who has profited far more than you and recognized far more. It was just an investigator coming into the picture. December 1998 was the straw that broke the donkey's back. It was the culmination of something that had been sat on for years. Long was writing a book and going to reveal things however he liked whether Heironimus said anything or not. Long had more than enough to expose Heironimus as far as they were concerned. That man is not just calling on the phone. He is showing up at your doorstep, looking you in your one good eye and saying he's going to blow the lid. Then the very next day after this person contacts you for the third time, FOX airs a huge special showcasing the film right from the beginning of the show and then pointing to some total nobody with no connection to the film whatsoever. I can completely understand Heironimus reaching his breaking point then. He at least had the decency to go to Gimlin first, Gimlin who has being relying on him to not tell the truth to protect him while he plays the hero for Bigfooters.

 

Even then, even when Heironimus came forward he did so anonymously and as carefully as he could, submitting to a polygraph, keeping his name withheld. Heironimus did not go rushing into the limelight looking for news conferences. If you knew the history, you would know it took a full * two * years * until January 2001 that Heironimus would even agree to go public. When Heironimus did decide to tell his story, there had been two years for two friends living nine doors apart to deal with the issue between them. Heironimus only came forward once he felt he had a way to prove that he was in the suit. he at this point thought somehow the suit could be found and if it was, it would undeniably be connected to him by having a single glass eye in it. Whether you think that absurd or not, between Bob Heironimus and Glenn Cassidy who arranged for Heironimus to get reconnected with Long two years later, they considered it a powerful enough link to prove what Heironimus had to tell.

 

Backdoc, I would truly like for you to see in the BFF archives the reaction here at the BFF when Heironimus passed his second polygraph on national television. Believers were waiting for it, laughing amongst each other, high-fiving how Heironimus was sure to fail. The reactions when he passed were timeless. The shock and the disgust. And this was long before the extent of the friendship between Gimlin and Heironimus was known, even as to this day so many believers know nothing about it. The ones who do know, it gets under their skin, makes them revile Heironimus all the more and comfort themselves with any perceived flaw in his story, like acting as if his description of no horse bucking and relating Roger's version is a contradiction.  

 

These men trusted each other for years, working together in a workplace where their connection in the film was common knowledge.

 

Why did Gimlin trust Heironimus so much? Why did Heironimus deny being in this film? 

 

Bigbobs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

 

You offer a lot of meat to chew on but I think there is a lot of fat on the meat as well.

 

Right off the bat, you are painting Roger as this guy with some magic ability to involve others in his schemes.  It's as if these people have been hypnotized by Roger.  Then you attribute what you assume about the man.  An example of this is Roger wanted to make one big score and it would set him up for life.  Even assuming this is true, it clearly does not change what is on the film.

 

You wish to pick apart little things Roger did or said but are more forgiving of Bob H.  If Bob H came out and said he was lying, I think you would say, "Bob is lying about being a liar to protect his friend Gimlin"

 

I have a different view of all this than you do. Some of it may be because I lack the encycledpia involved in this background. 

 

It is possible I might be more inclined to be less poisoned by it.   I might be more inclined to see things with this in a more simple way.  One of us is right and one of us is wrong. That much we can agree.  Bob H is either the man in the suit -- the PGF suit or he is not. 

 

Much of what you consider fact is just hearsay.  Now that does not mean it all is. It also doesn't mean some of it might still be true.

 

I know you and I will not see eye to eye on this.  What I will do is read again this post you offer and 'chew' on both the meat and fat again. 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...