Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Crowlogic

Bob Heironimus And Bob Gimlin's Friendship

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

Kit,

It seems to me you have been accused of contradicting yourself here on the BFF threads. You have used the term " quote mining" and various others. Are these fair attacks on you? Why are they fair to gimlin and roger?

I just think you are so heck bent on finding these major contradictions in the backstory, you see them at every turn. Some seem like blockbusters at first. Yet, often when the 'the rest of the story" is told, it makes sense in full context.

Is it a surprise if some could take your written words out of context on the BFF with so many postings? Others could take bob and Rogers words out of context with so many interviews.

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Just proof of Gimlin completely contradicting himself. 

 

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

 

When two witnesses contradict each other then what's the most likely reason? People's memory. So why would one person be any different?

 

You tried the same thing with DeAtely claiming he contradicted himself over a 30 year timeframe. Seriously, you really did this.

 

Oh noes, a guy who deals with horses 7/365 his entire life contradicts himself about a single horse event over the course of 40+ years! Can't be! Must be proof of a hoax! Here we go again..

 

Your "proof of Gimlim completely contradicting himself" adds up to nothing but speculation. You really can't see this?

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

This is you being taken kicking and screaming to the place where you can not have the cake you want of apologist excuses for Patterson and Gimlin while trying to make a different standard for Heironimus. Fairness is not your friend. 

 

This is Roger Patterson not decades apart at all but while he lived saying both that Gimlin and he tracked Patty for three miles but then conversely saying that they gave up and focused on documenting the tracks at the site...

 

79348af03a032e84.jpg

 

W: Now, how far did you follow her? 

R: I really didn't follow her any much further than when my camera run out of film and I knew that it was out, and Bob got on his horse and went after her then, and from that point he seen her more than I did, I never seen her again. 

W: How far were you able to follow her?

B: I watched her until she went up the road about 300 yards, and she went around a bend in the road and that was the last I seen of her.

 

W: Now, after all this too dreadful excitement what did the pair of you do? Here you've, after all these hundreds of years of rumours and sightings and all the rest of it all up and down the Pacific Northwest and Michigan and Wisconsin and everywhere else, what did you do when

you're standing there, you've recovered from the shock, with a camera full of film? I mean just tell me precisely what you did at that time. What did you say to each other?

R: Well I, when Bob come back, I yelled to him and I said, "Bob, come back," because at this point my horse was I didn't know where and the pack horse was gone, my scabbard, and my rifle was in the scabbard, on the horse, and the tracks before, down in there that we had heard about, were in a set of three, and there was a bigger one there, and I thought that possibly there was a male in close in .

W: You were getting nervous.

R: I was getting nervous.

W: You were on foot there without the rifle.

R: I was on foot without anything, and I yelled to Bob to come back and
we would think the thing over and .

W: Was that just about the time you broke off the chase, you might say?

B: Right, that was, when I last seen her go round the curve. And at that time I went back and proceeded to gather up Roger's horses, his horse that he was riding and the pack horse, and after .

W: Then what?

B: After chasing them up and down the road for a little while and finally catching them, well we talked it over and I said I'd check around and see if maybe that I could find some tracks where she had come into this area and possibly sight the other one, so I took the camera
while he gathered up his stuff and ..

W: You scouted around for a while did you? Well when did you ..were you able to identify specifically the tracks you had made while you were following her?

R: Yes, because immediately after we went across the creek and immediately after I called Bob back we looked at the tracks and they were, the tracks were there .

W: These are the tracks we saw in the movie tonight.

R: That's right.

W: The tracks for which you have the plaster casts tonight.

R: Right.

W: How come you had plaster casts with you . plaster with you?

R: We didn't have plaster, 'cause we went, we had to go back to the, to the truck and get plaster and come up and cast them.

W: How long would that take you, to leave the scene, go back to the truck and come up again?

R: We were at that point about two, what, maybe two miles from that area then?

B: Not two miles, I'd say. By the road it was just about an even two miles, across the hill that way it was a little shorter but we went .

W: Now, okay, so you then gave up . you took the plaster tracks . How deep were these tracks by the way, in inches? . Inch and a quarter or .

B: Some of them were down as far as three and a half inches deep into the softer soil. These particular ones we took here were, weren't quite so deep because they were flatter tracks.

W: Alright now, many of the zoologists that were people you consulted, have they given you any idea of the weight of this creature? The height or the weight?

B: They did on the height, measuring by the soles of those feet, in the picture, and they estimated the height to be approximately six foot, nine inches.

W: What was the length of the stride?

R: Just pardon me, this was estimated on a fourteen and a half inch, excuse me a fourteen inch track and these tracks were fourteen and a half inches, which would, would add quite a considerable bit .

W: What was the stride cadence? I believe that's the proper technical description.

R: She averaged a forty-one inch stride, somewheres thereabouts. She was taking, she took up to a forty-six inch stride.

W: So that was three feet five to . twelve threes are thirty-six, twelve fours are forty-eight . three feet five to three feet ten.

R: Yes.

W: My goodness gracious me. Of course this . There must be lots of them around there, I mean, whatever were they doing down by the creek?

R: Well there were fish in this creek, we didn't fish it but we seen them jumping, and I . I can only surmise what, she was either drinking or possibly trying to catch a fish in the creek.

W: Any sign of feces as a result of that, feces around, any other tracks of the animal?

R: No, there was no, no, no droppings at all.

W: That's the word I was looking for. Well now what? You going to sell this film to the highest bidder? 

R: Well, we're just having to . we haven't made any definite plans but I would imagine that we will, will in future probably sell it. 

W: How can you afford to take all this time off to go down . oh no, well first of all, how long have you been looking for sasquatch, live sasquatch?

R: Well, off and on, for about seven and a half years, but the last four years I've made much more of an effort than any other time.

W: You're financially independent?

R: Well, somewhat.

W: In other words you can go out for this kind of caper without suffering too much financially.

R: Well, it's been tough.

W: Why has nobody ever found any bones of these sasquatch, down in that Bigfoot country where they have been reported so many times?

R: Well, not only down in that country but there's been tracks all over the Northwest and Canada, as you well know in Canada, but they seem, I think anyway . this maybe doesn't agree with all the fellows that's been involved in this . but they seem to dwell primarily in the rainforest or they can get to the rainforest fairly easy, and bones in this type of climate, in the rainforest climate, don't last very long.

W: Do you realize, Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson, that people are going to say you're total nuts? You know that, don't you? You're going to be held up to ridicule by some people. 

R: Well, I've taken quite a bit of this in the past and it doesn't surprise me. I know they're there, and I know that we're going to get one in the next possibly five to ten years or maybe sooner and when we do I think there's going to have to be many people and also scientists
maybe eat a little crow. 

W: You said they are vegetarians, eh?

R: I don't think that they're solely vegetarians.

W: Do you think they go for fish, like bears go for fish?

R: I think that they, they will eat what they have to, to keep alive,
and in some areas if they can get enough vegetation they .... 


Tape ends there.
-------- 

Source: Graciously contributed to this website by John Green. 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/int...opatterson.htm

 

Your double standard ice cream is taken.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Thanks for the tape. What smoking gun are we supposed to find this time? Like how the questioner is all over the place instead of staying on a continued point by the way.

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

 

This is Roger Patterson not decades apart at all but while he lived saying both that Gimlin and he tracked Patty for three miles but then conversely saying that they gave up and focused on documenting the tracks at the site...

 

 

Wrong. That's the interviewer starting to ask about tracking Patty but then changing the subject mid sentence to noticing tracks:

 

W: You scouted around for a while did you? Well when did you ..were you able to identify specifically the tracks you had made while you were following her?

R: Yes, because immediately after we went across the creek and immediately after I called Bob back we looked at the tracks and they were, the tracks were there .

 

Roger is stating that they noticed the tracks in the ground right after the encounter. That's it. He doesn't say they stayed there and didn't go anywhere. He doesn't say that they didn't scout around for a while. The interviewer changed the course of the discussion mid sentence.

 

 

This is you being taken kicking and screaming to the place where you can not have the cake you want of apologist excuses for Patterson and Gimlin while trying to make a different standard for Heironimus. Fairness is not your friend. 

 

 

 

There is no different standard for Heironimus. We have proof that his story was not true and we know what really happened.

 

Patterson and Gimlin contradictions don't tell us what really happened or which contradiction is true or false. It also doesn't prove any kind of malicious intent or memory issue. It's ALL speculation.

 

You can cry about that all you want and scream "different standards" but that's obviously not the case. This is all about facts versus speculation, and this is you in denial.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Why come forward now?

 

If Bob Gimlin was involved in a hoax, why come out now and continue to tell your story?  Why do a several hour interview with Bill Munns?  Why go to a few different conferences and open yourself up to Q's? 

We know for decades Bob G has been mostly silent on the PGF.

 

It just seems to me if you were involved in such a hoax the best thing to do would be to keep your mouth shut. 

 

What does it benefit Gimlin to come forward and take more Q's and thus, more scrutiny? Maybe he would forget how he lied last time about this or that detail.

 

Bob is not asking for money as far as we know and there can't be that much money to be made.  He is not writing or selling a book.  He opens himself up to Questioning by a man who is no dummy in Bill Munns.  If you were a liar and a crook would you open yourself up to Q from a man like Mr. Munns who has studied the film hand knows they kind of Q to ask?

 

I can understand Bob kept quiet as I understand it back in the day as he was fearful of problems with his wife.  When this was less of an issue he probably was tired of not getting a chance to speak up (other than a handful of interviews over all those years).

 

What is Bob Gimlin's motivation to come forward if he was a hoaxer?

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Gimlin and Heironimus being close friends is just a load of bunk created by conspiracy theorists. They were nothing but neighborhood acquaintances.

 

:victory:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I dont know where that idea comes from. Heironimus himself? He's full of it. He even claimed he didn't have anything to do with Roger or bigfoot until Roger asked him to be Patty in summer 1967 via Bob Gimlin, as Heironimus claims he never really talked to him........yet there he is in Roger's film from May 1967 playing a cowboy on the hunt for bigfoot....before he claims he ever had anything to do with Roger or bigfoot.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...