Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Crowlogic

Bob Heironimus And Bob Gimlin's Friendship

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

"I was a horselength or so behind Roger..."

 

"He bailed off that little horse with his camera and ran across the creek..."

 

(4:48)

 

 

Patterson's horse, younger and less experienced, tried to spin around and come back. Gimlin's was a more seasoned roping horse but was still spooked by the encounter with the figure. Patterson was trying to control his horse with one hand while reaching back into the saddlebag for his camera with the other. He was quite agile and athletic, since he did rodeo riding and gymnastics. This was a maneuver he had practiced. "He always kept that saddlebag ready. The saddlebag had two straps on it to keep it buckled down. He kept one buckled and one of them unbuckled so he could get his camera in the event he needed it in a hurry and this was the case at that particular time... that was the theory if he ever had to get it, he kept the one buckle on there so it would not bounce out while he was riding and the other one loose so he could get it out in a hurry," said Gimlin.

 

Patterson slid off the horse with his camera in hand and the horse ran off, prompting the packhorse to jerk free from Gimlin and follow. - The Wrangler and the Wildwoman: Bob Gimlin's Encounter With Bigfoot. Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science

 

 


 

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? 

 

Patterson claims to have tracked Patty 3.5 miles. This is in addition to to riding back to the campsite and back to get casting supplies. Impossible timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

Bob H's claim however can be proven false.

 

So can tracking Patty 3.5 miles.

 

And wow, neato. Gimlin said Roger ran up into the thick bush chasing a fleeing Patty.

 

Yes, Roger did indeed break out a bent stirrup for Al Hodgson...

 

Whatcha doin with your saddle there, Roger?

I'm removing the bent stirrup, Bob.

Why?

I'm gonna show it to Hodgson as proof that we had a violent encounter with that Bigfoot we just filmed.

Is your foot still hurtin'?

Yep!

 

R: Right. Well, my horse was nowhere - I was already off my horse, I was on the ground underneath him. - Roger Patterson

"My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it."

- Roger Patterson

Patterson's horse reared in alarm at the sight of the creature, bringing both horse and rider to the ground, Patterson pinned below.

http://www.oregonbig...m/patterson.php

In the early afternoon of October 20, 1967 as Patterson and Gimlin, on horseback, followed a trail in the creek bottom, they spotted a bigfoot apparently drinking from the creek. Patterson's horse reared in alarm as the bigfoot stood up and began to walk away. Both the horse and Patterson fell to the ground, with Patterson briefly pinned by the fallen horse. Patterson quickly worked himself free and grabbed his hand-held movie camera.

http://www.bfro.net/...DN/ca_dn004.htm

Things seem to have happened very quickly after that. All three horses panicked and both men were again, according to their story, shocked and alarmed at the sight of the huge creature. The pack horse reared, broke its trailing rope and bolted southwards. Gimlin’s horse began to panic and he was forced to dismount in a hurry. He slid out of the saddle and took a firm grip on the reigns and managed to hold the horse. Patterson had less luck. His horse reared and fell over sideways, coming down on his right leg, crushing the metal stirrup on his foot and pinning him temporarily to the ground.

http://www.bigfoot-l...erson_film.html

When the two men came into view of the creature, Roger’s normally unspookable mountain horse reared up in panic and fell over on him. Roger’s leg was pinned to the ground. With a thrashing horse pinning him to the ground, he pulled himself out from underneath it, and whipped out a 16mm camera from a saddle bag, and then dashed toward the fleeing figure, finally steadying his aim as it walked away.

http://pyramidbeach....n-gimlin-film…/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^Please show us the proof that none of those things ever happened Kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You miss the point. Gimlin was a horse length away from Roger and describes him doing something completely different. Not vague I'm not really sure I was looking at Patty. He has a detailed explanation for what Roger did and why he did it, that thing he practiced for just such an event. No pinning, no Roger trapped under Peanuts getting his foot crushed. One hand Legolas off the back is the Gimlin version. How could he have seen that if it didn't happen?

 

They tracked Patty for 3.5 miles after filming her? Well, holy cow, how did Gimlin forget that one? How is that even possible with the timeline necessary to do everything they did before arriving at Hodgson's store?

 

Heironimus can mistakenly place Roger on Chico. Heironimus can say that Roger was shaking the camera before bailing off the horse and continuing filming. He can misremember things just as Gimlin can. He can even fill in the gaps with what he's been told. He can support the Chambers theory and then the Morris claim just like Gimlin can adopt 7'6" Patty because of Munns saying so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I'm not missing any point. As I said before these are things that cannot be proven either way- it's only speculation and nothing more. Gimlin could have simply never witnessed the fall, assumed Roger just did his dismount and started running with the camera. There is no question that Roger dismounted from the horse and got his camera- the only question is how. Do you think Gimlin would have kept his eyes on Roger during a Bigfoot encounter? Hardly, but even that is more speculation.

 

Bob H's claim goes directly against the film footage. We can verify that his 'shaky cam on the horse' story never happened. That's a whole different ballgame to your claims. Every time he opens his mouth he puts himself in the negative credibility as ever having been there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It does not matter because Gimlin said specifically what he saw Roger do, not what he thought might have happened while he was looking at Patty.

 

Tracking Patty 3.5 miles could not have physically happened and able to get to Al Hodgson's in time. Gimlin specifically says it did not happen.

 

Gimlin in April is telling Thom Cantrall all about Chico. Gimlin in July is all who-in-the-what-now with Rictor Riolo.

 

We can not say what Roger was doing before the film started rolling. Bob Heironimus is 100 ft away in a mask with a glass eye to the camera. Did Roger have the camera in hand on horseback riding back to where he will begin filming and Heironimus decades later in being adamant that the shakiness was never from any horse bucking which never happened thinks Roger was shaking the camera on horseback? Was Roger Looking through the camera at Bob's position on horseback before filming began? Bob says he saw that shaking. Gimlin says he saw Roger reach back one-handed and pull the camera out then with agility slide off the back of Peanuts.

 

He said he saw that. Just like Heironimus, he said he saw that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^Yet you can't tell us exactly what happened because there is no proof. What part of that don't you understand?

 

Welcome to Deflection..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The part where Gimlin completely contradicts himself. The part where Gimlin and Patterson completely contradict each other. Tracking Patty 3.5 miles on top of everything else they had to do before getting to Al Hodgson's at 6pm is not possible.

 

You can't tell us exactly what Patterson was doing before he started filming because there is no proof. 

 

Welcome to fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

The part where Gimlin completely contradicts himself. The part where Gimlin and Patterson completely contradict each other.

 

That's not proof of anything. Witnesses contradict each other all the time, just look at the Michael Brown shooting. Does that mean it didn't happen? Welcome to reality.

 

 

Tracking Patty 3.5 miles on top of everything else they had to do before getting to Al Hodgson's at 6pm is not possible.

 

 

Unless you have an intinerary of events showing the exact times that things occurred then you have no idea what you're talking about. Walking or running 3.5 miles doesn't take long at all for anyone who's physically fit. How would you know what was possible that day or not? Ridiculous.

 

 

You can't tell us exactly what Patterson was doing before he started filming because there is no proof. 

 

 

You mean like how you're trying to tell me what was possible after the filming- with no proof?

 

What we have is the film, and that doesn't jive with Bob H's testimony. There was no filming on horseback while shaking the camera up and down because we know there was only one take, and there is no filming on horseback. Bob even referred to what we see on the film when he made that statement.

 

 

Welcome to fairness.

 

 

Fairness has to jive with reality, and your fairness fails to do that.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

This 3.5 miles of tracking.   Wasn't a lot of that done on horses?   They had horses.

 

It reminds me of a Chuck Norris movie where he leaves the gun on the ground and walks over to fight 10 guys at one time.

 

 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^Yeah you're right, they said they collected the horses before going looking for her. Somehow Kit has decided there was no time for that to happen, that it was impossible.

 

??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Well, I must admit I don't have some court transcript of exactly word for word what Roger and Bob said about that day.

 

My impression from hearing Gimlin on TV before was as you say Rogue. That is, they gathered the horses and then looked around.

 

Also, Bob has said in one interview he went a bit ahead and Roger called him back as Roger was afraid 'it's mate' would show up.  Gimlin added and "Roger was there with nothing but a camera to defend himself, and it was out of film :spiteful: "

 

So it would be very unreasonable to think if these guys went on to track Patty they would leave the horses behind. They would use the horses. The would stay on the horses. When things got to thick for the horses they would turn around.  Plus, Bob added they were concerned it was going to get dark at some point as it gets dark in the mountains earlier esp in mid October.

 

I feel pretty confident unless someone takes things out of context, Roger and Bob used their horses after the event.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

That's not proof of anything. Witnesses contradict each other all the time, just look at the Michael Brown shooting. Does that mean it didn't happen? Welcome to reality.

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

Welcome to Bigfootery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^You're cracking me up Kit.

 

'I don't have any proof, BUT MAYBE if I keep reposting the same old thing it'll magically turn into proof of something!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Just proof of Gimlin completely contradicting himself. 

 

That is not two witnesses contradicting each other, that's one.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...