Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Crowlogic

Bob Heironimus And Bob Gimlin's Friendship

Recommended Posts

Guest

Kit, Bob H knew Bob G. Bob G couldn't get straight whose horse he rode that day for whatever reason. But what does that mean? Are you tapped into Gimlin's psyche? You are expending way too much energy on this and it doesn't get you any closer to the truth. It also doesn't strengthen your argument the more times you say it. JSA (Just Some Advice) more emphasis on the facts and less on speculation. That is all you can hope for. Lawyers get eaten alive in bigfootery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

See the Gimlin self-contradiction thread. He's completely ponced himself, knowing very acutely whose horse he had and the significance of it, the horse belonging to a close and trusted friend who ended up being the only person ever to make a public claim of being in the suit.

 

April 2014

 

"15) Kitakazee – Mr Gimlin, there were sources that said you had Bob Heironimus’s

Horse name Chico at Bluff Creek, can you confirm that? 

 

Bob:  Okay... I did have Bob Heronimous's horse because Roger had, apparently, borrowed that horse from Bob Heronimous.  'Cause I never got the horses together to go.  Roger gathered up the horses... I had the transportation and I knew the horse.  I'd been around the horse before... Big, stout... good roping horse and I think Bob used him back in those days to rope on but Bob Heronimous actually had that horse early in some of the work he was doing for Roger as well as myself where Roger was trying to get together a film to generate revenue to go on an expedition."

 

http://bigfootforums...-interview.html  

 

July 2014

 

"I was riding a big, tall 16 hand horse that Roger had borrowed from another guy."

 

Gimlin gives detailed descriptions of all the horses and the names for only the ones he was not riding. Gimlin knows perfectly well whose horse he had and what its name was. Rictor then asks...

 

Rictor Riolo: "And what about yours? What was the name of the big horse?"

 

 

Bob Gimlin: (shakes head, gives confused look) "The big horse. I can't remember his name. You know to me back then unless I was real familiar with a horses, I just called them horse."

 

(29:30 mark)

 

 

Bonus material...

 

Gimlin has boarded and trained horses for decades. It was not uncommon to for him to board horses of neighbors. During the late 1960's one of the horses he boarded was owned by Hieronimous. It was, in fact, Hieronimous' horse that Bob brought down to Bluff Creek in 1967.


http://www.bfro.net/.../korff_scam.asp

 

Bob Gimlin in 1992 prior to the truth surfacing that he was using the horse of his trusted friend at the time and only man ever to publicly claim to be in the PGF, Bob Heironimus, Roger Patterson film cast member...

Green: So you provided the truck and the...

Gimlin: Yeah, and the fuel, and my own horse and my own food. The agreement when we left on any of those investigations was that whatever Roger spent that we would split the expenses with me but Al DeAtley was backing Roger, because Roger didn't have a job at that particular time.

Green: So in fact he only financed Roger, he didn't finance your share at all?

Gimlin: No, he didn't finance my part of the trip at all. I had my own horse, my own equipment and my own food. I didn't expect somebody else to support me on that. It would be nice if I could have gotten part of the fuel pay paid and expenses on the truck.
 - John Green 1992 interview

 

 

goalster_goal_light2.gif

 

I think Rictor and Tammy have to go on the list as some of my favourite Bigfoot enthusiasts.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrSkwatch

See the Gimlin self-contradiction thread. He's completely ponced himself, knowing very acutely whose horse he had and the significance of it, the horse belonging to a close and trusted friend who ended up being the only person ever to make a public claim of being in the suit.

 

No significance, Kit. If Bob G. had said he was on Chico from the beginning, then what? Maybe Bob didn't see any reason to explain which horse he had. Proves nothing until you can come up with more. You haven't added much to your argument for years now.

 

Maybe you can find out where Roger's secret workshop was that allowed him to hide the suit as he worked on it?  We need more than your version of how things went down based on old memories and people who might tell stories to get there name in a book or TV show.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It's so rad. Bullets to the Hulk.

 

He made no mention of Chico as belonging to Bob Heironimus from the beginning because Heironimus did not come forward until 1999 anonymously and then 2004 publicly which is when him supplying Chico became known. Before that time Gimlin was saying he provided his own horse, including in his deposition when he sued Pat Patterson and Al DeAtley. After he says he was breaking in Chico for a few weeks as a favour to Heironimus...

 

Gimlin has boarded and trained horses for decades. It was not uncommon to for him to board horses of neighbors. During the late 1960's one of the horses he boarded was owned by Hieronimous. It was, in fact, Hieronimous' horse that Bob brought down to Bluff Creek in 1967.


http://www.bfro.net/.../korff_scam.asp

 

Breaking in a horse for Heironimus tanks Gimlin's early testimony that his horse didn't buck because it was a trailwise, older experienced roping horse. So then he changes it to he had nothing to do with it and Roger arranged all the horses. 

 

So April in this year when he's asked about it he's talking about how and why he had Heironimus' horse and how familiar he was with it and then in July he's playing who-in-the-what-now dumb pretending he didn't know the horse.

 

From Chris Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal when he questioned Gimlin about it...

 

I have confirmed with Bob Gimlin that Patterson definitely rode a small quarter horse (which he owned), not his Welsh pony "Peanuts." Also, that Patterson had arranged to borrow a horse by the name of "Chico" from Bob Heironimus for Gimlin to use.

 

Gimlin pretending he's forgotten Chico, he's totally busted. He's so busy playing his Woods & Wildmen role of humble hero and flirting with every women and telling them how beautiful they are that when he gets a question about Chico from Rictor he plays dumb when he was doing the opposite only three months before.

 

Gimlin has never changed his story?

 

56c8052ba5878eb7ece8f003dd4382cf.600x.gi

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

That's right, kit....the statements by Bob in red are indeed Bob referring to Roger's story....by mistake. Bob screwed-up. :lol:

 

In listening to MK describe Patty falling forward/"going down"...Bob thinks he's talking about Roger "going down"...and, in a mental GAFF....starts talking about Roger's account of the event as if it really did happen, within his 'hoax scenario'....since Bob H was, at that very moment, thinking it was visible in the Film.

 

This was a major gaff by Bob Heironimus. He misunderstood what MK Davis was pointing-out in the Film....and, when he realized his mistake...he started back-pedaling...by first including the word "supposedly"....and then stating in a more definitive way... "it didn't buck him off".

 

(The video is posted in post #83...in case anyone wants to enjoy listening to Bob's "confession", again).

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

One detail I just noticed in the dialogue, at about the :50 mark...when Davis describes the subject "falling down", he refers to the subject only as "it".....not as "Patty". Hence....Bob H's confusion. He thinks of Roger and/or the horse.

 

It's at that point that Bob interjects with...."the horse bucked him off". 

 

 

Also, at the 4:47 mark....Phil Morris tries to come to Bobby's rescue...by mentioning Bob's prosthetic eye.

 

I think Phil was cringing, listening to Bob's nonsensical, self-contradictory story. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ Yep.  BH's stories are enough to make anyone cringe.  If Gimlin was trying to hide a hoax then, why would it matter if he rode Chico?  That doesn't make any sense.  BH would have been in on that alleged hoax, no?  It's akin to the notion that Roger made hundreds of thousands of dollars on the PGf but refused to pay the "Bigfoot actor" a measly $1,000.  That all seems silly and I doubt it ever happened.  

 

Silly-Horse-2.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

^ Yep.  BH's stories are enough to make anyone cringe.  If Gimlin was trying to hide a hoax then, why would it matter if he rode Chico?  That doesn't make any sense.  BH would have been in on that alleged hoax, no?

 

It matters because it shows that Heironimus has a material connection to Bluff Creek as a supplier for the expedition. What? There was a bank robbery? That guy provided the getaway car which is proven and claims he was there? This is something Gimlin can not deny because the horse is on camera with Heironimus on Chico in the South Fork film, Gimlin on Chico in the Bluff Creek footage, and Patterson on Chico on the Argosy cover. This horse is completely known and Heironimus proved it was his and that it was there. Gimlin can't run from this. That's when he flails from the early testimony to John Green and his court deposition when suing Pat Patterson and Al DeAtley that he provided his own horse...

 

Green: So you provided the truck and the...

Gimlin: Yeah, and the fuel, and my own horse and my own food. The agreement when we left on any of those investigations was that whatever Roger spent that we would split the expenses with me but Al DeAtley was backing Roger, because Roger didn't have a job at that particular time.

Green: So in fact he only financed Roger, he didn't finance your share at all?

Gimlin: No, he didn't finance my part of the trip at all. I had my own horse, my own equipment and my own food. I didn't expect somebody else to support me on that. It would be nice if I could have gotten part of the fuel pay paid and expenses on the truck. - John Green 1992 interview

 

Oh, my horse, no wait. OK, so yeah, that was Bob Heironimus' horse, but it's OK guys, I was breaking Chico in and boarding him for a few weeks as a favour to Bob H as we were friends at the time. No, really, here's the real truth, OK, Gimlin Guard?...

 

Gimlin has boarded and trained horses for decades. It was not uncommon to for him to board horses of neighbors. During the late 1960's one of the horses he boarded was owned by Hieronimous. It was, in fact, Hieronimous' horse that Bob brought down to Bluff Creek in 1967.

 

http://www.bfro.net/.../korff_scam.asp

 

Yeah, there you go. It was BH's horse I brought down to Bluff Creek because I was boarding it for him. We're super tight so he doesn't mind me taking his rodeo horse two states away into the mountains for three weeks to look for the creature known as Bigfoot. Pish, we're cool like that.

 

OK, so, hold the phone, guys, slight edit. Did I say I was boarding Chico for Bob H? Chris Murphy, I'll give you the real deal about Chico...

 

Horse Sense

I have confirmed with Bob Gimlin that Patterson definitely rode a small quarter horse (which he owned), not his Welsh pony "Peanuts." Also, that Patterson had arranged to borrow a horse by the name of "Chico" from Bob Heironimus for Gimlin to use.

That Patterson and Gimlin had borrowed a horse from a man with whom they were friends, and which would later (1999) claim to have been the "creature" in the film seems odd on the surface. However, Gimlin did not have a horse that was suitable (old enough) for the expedition, so Patterson arranged to borrow Chico as stated. It is all that simple. The three men were friends and neighbours and borrowed horses from each other. Although Gimlin can't specifically recall, it is likely he had a borrowed horse for the previous Mt. St. Helens expedition. 

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

 

Yeah, we were friends with Heironimus but oops, I wasn't breaking it in for him. No, see it was Roger that borrowed the horse because all mine were too young to go look for Bigfoot in the NorCal mountains. It's all good, we're all friends, we're cool like that.

 

Thom Cantrall in April 2014 trying to get the straight version of it from Gimlin directly...

 

Kitakazee -

Thom: There are sources that you an... that you had Bob Heronimous's horse na... uh, named Chico at Bluff Creek.

 

Bob: Okay... I did have Bob Heronimous's horse because Roger had, apparently, borrowed that horse from Bob Heronimous. 'Cause I never got the horses together to go. Roger gathered up the horses... I had the transportation and I knew the horse. I'd been around the horse before... Big, stout... good roping horse and I think Bob used him back in those days to rope on but Bob Heronimous actually had that horse early in some of the work he was doing for Roger as well as myself where Roger was trying to get together a film to generate revenue to go on an expedition.

 

There you go, Thom. That's why I had Chico. I know that horse, been around it before, Bob used it in the other footage for us.

 

To Rictor Riolo only three months later in July 2014 being asked about all the horse at Bluff Creek and who was riding what, he describes every horse in minute detail, gives the names of both the horse Patterson was riding, Peanuts, and even the pack horse named Angel. What about your horse, Bob. Tell us about that one...

 

"I was riding a big, tall 16 hand horse that Roger had borrowed from another guy."

 

Rictor Riolo: "And what about yours? What was the name of the big horse?"

 

Bob Gimlin: (shakes head, gives confused look) "The big horse. I can't remember his name. You know to me back then unless I was real familiar with a horses, I just called them horse."

 

 

Absolutely awesome! Words to not begin to describe how fabulous that is. Three months ago he's giving Thom Cantrall the straight dope complete lowdown on Chico when asked about Heironimus' horse by name and now he's all who-in-the-what-now some horse he didn't know that Roger got from some guy.

 

It's precious. It's precious how clearly BSing he is and precious what it does to the people who cling desperately to the sacred idea that Gimlin never changes his story.

 

Totally, utterly busted. 

 

 

 It's akin to the notion that Roger made hundreds of thousands of dollars on the PGf but refused to pay the "Bigfoot actor" a measly $1,000.  That all seems silly and I doubt it ever happened.

 

 

Excellent. And akin to the actual fact that DeAtley gave Roger $75,000 as soon as the film came out and Patterson couldn't cough up the $700 she loaned him in May for the camera he needs but already has to go film that Bigfoot...

 

896148b94575567b8.jpg

 

Or bother to do anything about the constant warnings about the camera he yoinked and was supposed to return * two * days * later *, even when he is suddenly rolling in money...

 

Patterson+-+grand+larceny.gif

 

Patterson had no conscience about such issues and had no problem stiffing Heironimus, manipulating both Gimlin and he, making an impostor Gimlin, and why did he feel OK getting away with that? Oh, that's right. Wait for it...

 

Bob Heironimus and Bob Gimlin's friendship.

 

 

 

And his is your hero...

 

RogerPatterson9_zps8f5c3aef.jpg

 

 

Welcome to Bigfootery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

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

 

 

What do you mean he "thinks" it started that way? He claims it DID start that way. He even described what Patterson was doing on the horse and how he bounced the camera up and down while filming. This is not something that is 'thought', he's describing what he witnessed:

 

"Roger was sitting on that horse, he pushed the camera up and down with his hands, his arms, that‘s where you get the bouncing imaging."

 

 

"He pushed the film [i.e., camera] up and down sitting on the horse with his hands, to make it bouncy."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

He even described what Patterson was doing on the horse and how he bounced the camera up and down while filming. This is not something that is 'thought', he's describing what he witnessed:

 

"Roger was sitting on that horse, he pushed the camera up and down with his hands, his arms, that‘s where you get the bouncing imaging."

 

 

 

That claim cannot possibly be true...because there was no splice in the original film, at the point where the 'Patty footage' begins....and, at no point in the early part of the film do we see movement consistent with Roger dismounting a horse. 

 

If Bob's claim were true...'Roger dismounting his horse' would have to have been a detectable event in the film. But, it isn't....because it never happened. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

What do you mean he "thinks" it started that way? He claims it DID start that way. He even described what Patterson was doing on the horse and how he bounced the camera up and down while filming. This is not something that is 'thought', he's describing what he witnessed:

 

"Roger was sitting on that horse, he pushed the camera up and down with his hands, his arms, that‘s where you get the bouncing imaging."

 

 

"He pushed the film [i.e., camera] up and down sitting on the horse with his hands, to make it bouncy."

 

 

 

 

The satisfaction I get at exposing quote-mining. You are trying to constrain Bob through quote-mining and distortion that he claims the entire PGF was filmed from horse back. Context restoration...

 

MK Davis: "... but I was under the impression that he (Heironimus) was saying that he (Patterson) took it from horseback so I thought this would apply."

 

Bob Heironimus: "He started the film, filming it on horseback, then supposedly the horse bucked him off and he ended up on foot."

 

MK: "What do you mean supposedly? Now you were there."

 

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

 

MK: "Oh, it didn't?"

 

BH: "No. It's just like I told you. He pushed the film up and down sitting on the horse with his hands to make it bouncy, then he bailed off the horse and (inaudible) on foot."

 

In bold is what you listened to when transcribing Bob's words and made the conscious choice to leave out. I take your quote-mining ice cream, thanks.

 

(4:15)

 

 

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

The satisfaction I get at exposing quote-mining. You are trying to constrain Bob through quote-mining and distortion that he claims the entire PGF was filmed from horse back. Context restoration...

 

 

I never said that Bob claimed the entire PGF was filmed on horseback. I specifically said "started that way". Did you read the post?

 

The point I was making was that he claimed any of it at all was filmed on horseback, which we know it wasn't. How exactly could Bob describe seeing Roger shaking the camera up and down while sitting on a horse?

 

How could Bob describe seeing something that never happened Kit?

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

How could someone see something that never happened?

 

Welcome to Bigfootery...

 

3.5 mile tracking...

 

 79348af03a032e84.jpg

 

Patterson running into the brush chasing a fleeing Patty...

 

At that point, I asked Bob (because he was then what is called "the back-up man," which means that he was now close enough to see Roger clearly) "Just what was Roger doing?"

"He was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into the real thick bush."

"Did you see her, too?"

"Yeah, Ivan, but 'way ahead and really taking off for the hills."

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy68.htm

 

Roger Patterson trapped under his horse a bent stirrup? Never happened says Gimlin. Bailed off extracting camera in one-handed maneuver that he had been practicing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

You say Bob H. is Patty.

Bob H claimed they picked him because he was a man who "could be trusted"

Yet, to believe bob we have to believe he showed the suit the next day after filming.

he did not wait more than a day to stab his friend Gimlin in the back. Then he is a hero by suddenly keeping quiet a second time. He is forgetting he already showed several people the suit the next day of filming previously at the bar. Then after keeping quiet for so long that second time, he is compelled by a reporter with no power at all to make him talk.

How is that? We are to believe this?

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

How could someone see something that never happened?

 

Welcome to Bigfootery...

 

Welcome to Deflection.

 

None of the points you made could be proven either way, so what's your point? How could you possibly know that they never happened?  Gimlin never claimed that the stirrup thing never happened- he just didn't see it happen. Al Hodgson even stated that Roger showed him the bent stirrup - where did that come from if it never happened?

 

Bob H's claim however can be proven false.

 

How exactly could Bob describe seeing Roger shaking the camera up and down while sitting on a horse? Is Bob flat out lying?

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...