Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

A New Look At The Story Of Bob H

Recommended Posts

Guest

This conversation was started in another thread, but to keep all the gathered information in one place I am starting this new thread.

At this point, all we are going on is the word of Bob H and now Howard H. We don't know what Roger told Gimlin to ask Bob H. If we listen to Greg Long, there was a meeting at Roger Pattersons house with Roger and Bob H, where this alleged $1,000.00 was spoke of in some form. The only possible witnesses to this conversation would have been Bob Gimlin and Patricia Patterson. I highly doubt Roger Patterson jumped on the phone and invited anyone else to be present during this conversation. Who was it that told Greg Long this meeting took place at Rogers house? It wasnt Bob Gimlin, because Gimlin has refused to talk to Greg Long. I think I can reasonably assume it was Bob H. If it was Bob H who told this to Greg Long, then why did Bob H not discuss who else was present during this meeting. Greg Long only discusses Bob H and Roger Patterson. Did Bob H forget there were about a half dozen others standing around witnessing this "promise to pay $1,000.00".

Comments after a meeting by Bob H, to his friends do nothing to prove an actual agreement for anything. These people, unless they were at Roger Pattersons home, can not testify to what was actually discussed between Bob H and Roger Patterson - anything they heard from Bob H after the meeting, is heresay.

Now, we have Howard H coming out of nowhere to establish another link to this $1,000.00, although past attempts for Howard to help clear his brothers name had been met with silence. No one before this revelation by Kitakaze ever mentions Howard Heronimus having any involvement at all. Bob Gimlin also knew Bob H, he lived right down the street from him. According to Greg Long eventually it was Bob Gimlin who went to Bob H and asked him to meet with Roger at his home. Why didn't Roger just go to Bob Gimlin and ask he help with this meeting in the first place? Roger was friends with Bob Gimlin too - good friends in fact. Oh, and there is no mention of Howard H being offered money to keep his mouth shut.

There are rumors and inuendo that others were witness to this "promise" to pay $1,000.00. Although none of those who state they witnessed this "promise" say they were offered anything to keep their silence.

We are lead to believe, Bob H was a man who had very limited funds, because his only job was being a fruit picker. Well, we also know Bob H owned a corvette, and used that car in Drag Racing (during this time period). I also know Bob H has some how managed to acquire more than 2 pieces of property. I also know he lived on a working ranch, owned by his family. Bob H also bought and sold horses and cattle (during this time period). Which makes perfect sense, as he did live on a working ranch, and he did loan a horse to Bob Gimlin..I am assuming Bob H did not keep this horse in the garage. Huh, not bad for a fruit picker.

Who are these new "witnesses" (according to Kitakaze) to the "promise to pay $1,000.00?" Witnesses after the fact, do not count. Anyone can say anything later, especially to people who were not present during the conversation. Names given so far, have omitted this information in any interviews given in the past. Now, they remember. More than 40 years later. This is the only time I have ever heard the arguement for memories that improve over time.. Why would each one of these people now remember such a conversation, and each one of them offer this information seperately? You would think this important information that would have been offered in the past. This is very convenient to say the least.

I think there is a strong possibility this was a loan for the filming of a documentary. Bob H had the funds, and we know a meeting of some kind took place between Roger and Bob H.

Kitakaze has asked a good question.

Also, does anyvbody want to take a swing at how Roger and Bob had enough money for three weeks in the woods and for chartering a plane to deliver the film? In one of Gimlin's versions, he took time off of work, but in another he was between jobs at the time so he could have time to be in NorCal for three entire weeks. Al DeAtley said no way he was funding any expeditions by Roger before the film. Where did Roger and Bob get the bread to do this?

We already know Roger went to Vilma Radford for a loan. We know this because Vilma had a contract drawn up. It wouldnt shock me, if any agreement between Roger and Bob H was sealed with a handshake. This meeting was also held in private between Roger and Bob H. So, who knows why Roger asked for the money. We also know that Roger asked someone else to help get a meeting with Vilma Radford - so he could try and secure the loan. We know in this situation Roger is now said to have asked Howard H to help get a meeting with Bob H, with Bob Gimlin ultimately securing the meeting. Huh, pretty similar situation...

I have no problem at all thinking Roger may have asked Bob H to be an investor in this documentary. None at all. Roger had already discussed this with other people - Vilma Radford for one, this documentary was not a secret. It also appears someone else is not aware of the events of this situation. According to Kitakaze's post above, Al DeAtley said there was no way he would be funding any expeditions prior to the film. So, where did this money come from? The only person we know was approached for a loan - was Vilma Radford, but we also have Bob H jumping up and down about $1,000.00.

Question I have is this. Would Bob H be more likely to tell the world he was stiffed out of an agreement by Roger, or attempt to get his money by not just saying he was owed money but to try and get an even larger return on his investment by saying - "I was the guy in the suit". It's clear to me Bob H was not the man in the suit. Why? His story keeps changing and the important details he has gotten wrong. When these errors are pointed out, he changes his story and attributes the mistake to years...

Then, we have this. An interview Bob H gave to a Seattle Washington Television Show:

Reporter: Do you think your entitled to be paid something?

Bob H: (shrugs his shoulders)It’s my turn, lets put it that way. Since I was never even recognized, at all, by anybody. Maybe, you know, maybe I’ll get my thousand dollars back. Who knows.

Bolding mine.

The word "back" says to me Bob H was expecting to have money re-paid, not recieve payment for services he performed. I have never heard anyone (waiting for a paycheck) say (for example) "I worked 40 hours for you, I want my money back." "I roofed your house, I want my money back." No, when you perform services the request is, "I worked 40 hours for you, I want to be paid." Using the word "back" implies you gave something of value, more than your time, and you expect to see a return of what you gave. You can not recieve back the time you put in at work, which is why you are paid for that time. You pay "back" a loan, you are "paid" or another popular phrase is "I want my money" for work performed. I find it interesting that Bob H supporters would have a problem with the use of my summation in this regard when we have this:

The relatives say they saw the suit two days after the film was shot. No date was given by Long for Hammermeister's observation, but it apparently came well after the relatives' observation, as implied by the word "still" in the justification Heironimus gave Hammermeister for requesting his silence: "There was still supposed to be a payola on this thing, and he didn't have it

So, it is apparently okay to analyze the use of each word when it comes to supporting the unsubstanciated claims of Bob H, yet no one else.

Interesting way to make a case.

According to Greg Long and Kitakaze, it was already known around Yakima that Roger wasnt the best at repaying his loans. Would Bob H have been willing to come forward and add his name to the list of those who have already said they loaned Roger money, and never seen a dime? Or, did Bob H, who was known (and admitted) to sit at the local tavern with his brothers, telling lies and making up stories, have decided it would look better for him to not admit he loaned Patterson money, but to say he was in the suit. Saying he was in the suit would be far more profitable if he could prove it, by this time (2004) he knew he would never recover money owed to him because of a loan made to Patterson.

Only there has been a big snag in that - Bob H cant seem to tell the same story, and gets important details wrong. So, now he is in the position of defending himself, and still not making a dime.

Also, something worthy of consideration. If you were willing to pay someone money for a job - would you feel you needed to go through others to make the offer, or would you simply make the offer? If someone is looking for financial backing - then they might want to feel out the idea with others who know the person. If I was willing to pay someone $1,000.00 even today, I would just ask them. Why include others? Now, if I wanted to ask for a loan, I might ask those who know the person, "what do you think they might say?" Before I had the door slammed in my face.

This speculation on my part could very well account for the extra money Roger Patterson had to hire that plane to shuttle the film, and pay for the time spent by Roger and Bob at Bluff Creek.

Seems pretty darn reasonable to me.

----------------------

Cont'd

One thing is for certain. The only way Bob H's story works - is you MUST believe Roger Patterson is a con-man and all around horrible person who pulls the wings off butterflies and kicks puppies. If you take away this "Patterson is a con-man" -- then what? Which is why (I think) Kal Korff fires the first shot right out of the gate in Long's book. Bob H, Kal Korff and Greg Long want people to believe Bob H, but in order to do that (because their evidence is shakey at best) they must bring Roger Patterson's credibility into question, then destroy it. One of the most common tactics is to destroy the credibility and reputation of the person in question - in this case "Roger Patterson" so one story can appear more credible than another.

We hear about PR smear campaigns all the time - this is just another example (in my opinion). Yes, Roger did not always repay loans, but that does not make him guilty of being a horrible person. We have heard about the camera from the Shepards Camera store, and how Roger was convicted of Grand Larceny. Yet, when these issues are confronted - then we find out Roger simply forgot to return the camera. Roger then returned the camera in good working order and the charges are dropped. Roger was convicted of nothing. Why do we not hear the whole story, but instead hear the worst of the situation? Answer, because that is the intent of a smear campaign to make one person look better than the other. Smear campaigns can be used to pit one reputation against another - and that is exactly what we have in this case.

Roger is not accused, nor does he admit, to sitting in the local bar, telling lies and making up big stories, that would be the Heironimus Boys. A person who does not repay loans, is a far cry from a con-artist or convicted felon. I have heard many stories about Bob H and his brothers - which include that local bar, but these are not my stories to tell. Lets just say, Bob H and his brothers were no angels, and I would rather run into Roger Patterson than Bob H and his brothers any day.

I have not read one interview, where Greg Long or Bob H do not take pot shots at Roger Patterson.

On another note. If you look at the Radford Contract you will see the words "for expenses in connection with the filming of "Bigfoot- Americas Abominable Snowman". One thing that keeps getting missed is simply this --

Vilma Radford signed a contract in connection with the filming of the Documentary - not what was ultimately produced, which is what we have today the "PGF". These are two separate films. Much has been made out of the fact that Vilma did not recover "all of her money". I think I know exactly why. When Vilma filed her suit in court, the film she was attempting to collect on, had not been finished (the documentary). There was no "5%" of anything, because there was no documentary, "Bigfoot-Americas Abominable Snowman". I have not seen any actual court filings, but If I had to guess, I would bet money on Vilma trying to collect money off the second film, the "PGF" - which is why the judgment came down the way it did. Vilma and her attorneys would have to prove she was entitled to money from this second film, which is clearly not the case. If Vilma was not trying to collect on the PGF, what else could she possibly think she was entitled to that was earning her 5%??

The Documentary and the PGF are were two separate projects. One was planned and everyone knew about(the documentary) the PGF happened after Roger and Bob returned to Yakima, Roger received a phone call from John Green then Roger and Bob packed up and went to Bluff Creek, based on what Roger was told by John Green. I have never seen it said anywhere that John Green had anything to do with the filming of a Documentary, or that he was feeding information to Roger Patterson for the filming of this Documentary. These were two separate events. Roger did not call up Jerry Merritt and the guys and say, "Okay we gotta pack up and head to Bluff Creek guys, we may have something down there to add to the Documentary."

It is possible to have two different things happen during the same time period.

Also, much has been made out of Patterson not showing up in court the day of the Radford case. Well, if your guilty of what your being accused of in these types of proceedings - what is the point in hiring an attorney and showing up, when you are willing to accept a default judgment. Which is exactly what happened. Vilma received an award by the court for a little more than $850.00. Accepting a default judgment does not make you a horrible person, it means you understand what is going to happen and see no need to fight it out. I have actually heard Attorneys say to clients, "If you know you owe this money, and they can prove it, why waste your time and money by paying me. Accept the default judgment and just get it over with." Oh, and by the way. This non-payment would have been "Breach of Contract" not "Embezzlement" as evidenced by the actual document produced by Vilma Radford (in Greg Long's book). So, the Embezzlement charges are false as well. Embezzlement can hold criminal charges - but not Breach of Contract. Too bad some have been misinformed about this as well.

No, I am not saying what Roger did in the case of Vilma Radford was acceptable behavior. But, lets recognize the situation for what it really was. Roger did not con Vilma out of anything. In fact, he signed a contract. Con-men do not do that. Con-men do not sign their names, so the victim has something to show the cops or the courts. That just flys in the face of what a con-man is.

Oh, and something else. Has anyone else noticed the time between signing the Radford contract and its due date? The contract was typed up May 26, 1967, the due date was June 10, 1967. That is less than 1 month for payment in full of $850.00. That is roughly 16 days. IF Roger Patterson was known to not repay loans, and was a con-man, what made Vilma Radford think Roger Patterson could repay a loan of 850.00 in 16 days? I don't think Roger had the absolutely horrible reputation that keeps being discussed. I think people in Yakima recognized the issues Patterson faced, and simply looked the other way. But of course, Greg Long can't say that - or Bob H, because then Rogers reputation remains intact and people who evaluate Bob H's story must take an even closer look at Bob H, and I know Greg Long and Bob H did not want that to happen.

So, in the end, if you strip away all the allegations of felony convictions, fraud, Embezzlement and con-man, what are you left with? Which is why I do think it highly likely Bob H did in fact loan money to Roger Patterson for this documentary.

Also,

Why would Roger Patterson promise to pay Bob H $1,000.00, when Bob Gimlin had been promised nothing... Bob Gimlin spent more time in the woods during this ordeal than Bob H. Doesn't make sense does it? Would Bob Gimlin approach Bob H about loaning money to Roger to continue the project? Sure, I think he might. Why? Even Bob Gimlin admits, Roger offered to reimburse Bob G his expenses during these expeditions, but Bob G recognized Roger could not afford to do so - so he never pushed it. But, a loan Roger may have needed is different than Bob Gimlin helping to put money in someone elses pocket (Bob H), when Bob G himself had not been paid a cent.

We are also taking it for granted that Bob Gimlin knew what the topic of this "meeting" between the two men was about... Bob Gimlin may have simply been asked by Roger, "Hey, Bob, would you mind asking Bob H to come over to my house for dinner next week - I have something I would like to discuss with him." That is a very strong possibility, when you take into account human pride when asking for money or anything, for any reason.

I also think the easiest explanation for Howard H not wanting to give an interview to Greg Long, is simply because --Howard was friends with Roger. Howard lived with Roger and Patricia(in Rogers home)for sometime. Maybe Howard wanted nothing to do with yet one more of his brothers games (games which Bob H and others admitted to... sitting in the Idle Hour Tavern).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

http://www.yakimaridgerunners.com/completememberlist.html

List of members of the Yakima Ridgerunners. People who it is alleged, viewed a costume in the trunk of Bob H's mom's car.

Page 48 "He recalled that among the onlookers grouped around Heironimus's car were the Ridge Runners, members of a jeep club.

Johnson was either walking toward to the tavern or leaving it.

"I heard them talkin' when I went by. They were laughin' and gigglin'. They were makin' fun about this suit, like, 'We're going to fool everybody.' I mean, I got the opinion.

But you couldn't fool us. We all lived here."

He chuckled and then added: "The monkey suit is what they called it. There's four Heironimus boys. Bob. And Bill. Bill worked for me for a while. Then there's Howard and Mike. The Idle Hour Tavern's where we'd go to congregate, lie to each other, and tell these big stories and try to make out like we was somthin'."

Above quote courtesy of Fister Crunchman

Question, has anyone seen this before? If so, what do you make of it?

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

Mullins believes the Sasquatch legend in California and the Pacific Northwest is based solely on the hoaxes made from "his wooden feet" and says some of the Bigfoot promoters are well aware of that possibility. Resentful of Roger Patterson, Mullins claimed he talked with an associate of Patterson who help hoax Patterson's famous "Bigfoot" film taken at Bluff Creek, California October 20, 1967. Mullins was told the costume was made of bear hides. [The source was never named, - the costume never surfaced.]

I know what I think, but I am curious to hear what others think. Also, please make note of when this article was written.

This article was written by and © Michael Dennett for the Skeptical Inquirer 7 (1):8-9 in the Fall of 1982 and was sent to me courtesy David Daegling, Dept. of Anthropology at the University of Florida, received June 8, 2001. In the original article, Dennett used 'Rent Mullens,' which is incorrect, his name correctly spelled was 'Rant Mullins.'

The only other person I can think of (other than Bob H) would be Ray Wallace. But, Ray never claimed to have worked with Patterson and Gimlin at Bluff Creek. At least not that I am aware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

great analogy Melissa,

I believe DeAtley holds the key to whether money is owed Bob H or not, if Roger let DeAtley take care of everything after the PGF was filmed then Roger would have to tell him about any business transactions before filming , things that might cost money down the line so to speak......

and this maybe why DeAtley brushed Bob H. off at the concert, there was no written contract for money owed.....

Still waiting for Kits interview with DeAtley, prolly never gonna happen.........

edited for spelling

Edited by driftinmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

How loans Don't work:

'hey can I borrow $1000.00?, and can you do some secret work for me, with the idea that you won't tell anyone about it, then if the idea pans out, I will pay you back?'

'Do I have to be quiet? Even if you don't pay me back?'

'yep'

'OK'

This really doesn't sound like a reasonable exchange, but if you have some evidence of this being a loan, please present it.

'

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

great analogy Melissa,

I believe DeAtley holds the key to weather money is owed Bob H or not, if Roger let DeAtley take care of everything after the PGF was filmed then Roger would have to tell him about any business transactions before filming , things that might cost money down the line so to speak......

and this maybe why DeAtley brushed him off at the concert, there was no written contract for money owed.....

Still waiting for Kits interview with DeAtley, prolly never gonna happen.........

Do you know that Roger negotiated film deals without DeAtley's knowledge?

Did DeAtley pay back Vilma Radford? She had a written contract. No.

Did DeAtley pay back Bob Gimlin for gas on the PGF trip? No.

DeAtley didn't pay back Roger's deals, he would give him 50 bucks here and there, according to his interview in Long's book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

but if you have some evidence of this being a loan, please present it.

but if you have some evidence that Bob H was owed money for being in a suit for filming the PGF, please present that also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew
Vilma Radford signed a contract in connection with the filming of the Documentary - not what was ultimately produced, which is what we have today the "PGF". These are two separate films. Much has been made out of the fact that Vilma did not recover "all of her money". I think I know exactly why. When Vilma filed her suit in court, the film she was attempting to collect on, had not been finished (the documentary). There was no "5%" of anything, because there was no documentary, "Bigfoot-Americas Abominable Snowman". I have not seen any actual court filings, but If I had to guess, I would bet money on Vilma trying to collect money off the second film, the "PGF" - which is why the judgment came down the way it did. Vilma and her attorneys would have to prove she was entitled to money from this second film, which is clearly not the case. If Vilma was not trying to collect on the PGF, what else could she possibly think she was entitled to that was earning her 5%??

The contract was drawn up by her, Roger was going to Northern California, he said, he knew there was a Bigfoot there, and wanted to film it.

The contract was legitimate, a judgement was issued in her favor, but only $400.00 was ever paid on it.

Dahinden bought her rights to the contract, and utilized it to secure majority rights in the film.

The contract is legit, and has nothing to do with the proposed name vs. the final name of the film.

If someone invests in a movie, and at the time of the investment the movie is titled CONAN- THE BARBARIAN, and after production, the name is changed to CONAN THE BEGINNING, the investor still has claim to the proceeds from the second title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

but if you have some evidence that Bob H was owed money for being in a suit for filming the PGF, please present that also

BobH has said he was to be paid $1000.00 for the work he did. BobH was there, therefore, evidence.

Who has said BobH loaned Roger money? Has Anyone there said it was a loan?

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

BobH has said he was to be paid $1000.00 for the work he did. BobH was there, therefore, evidence.

wrong, thats testimony, evidence would be if it was backed up by a second person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

BobH has said he was to be paid $1000.00 for the work he did. BobH was there, therefore, evidence.

Who has said BobH loaned Roger money? Has Anyone there said it was a loan?

Nope and as near as I can tell - nobody asked. I did find this though..

According to Jerry Merritt, both he and Roger tried to attract investors to help further fund his bigfoot movie. They were not successful at this.

Well, we know in part that was not totally correct, as Patterson did his best to secure funds on his own. Example: Vilma Radford.

Ah, and no. Bob H has no supportive evidence of his involvment - of any kind. If he did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The contract was drawn up by her, Roger was going to Northern California, he said, he knew there was a Bigfoot there, and wanted to film it.

The contract was legitimate, a judgement was issued in her favor, but only $400.00 was ever paid on it.

Dahinden bought her rights to the contract, and utilized it to secure majority rights in the film.

The contract is legit, and has nothing to do with the proposed name vs. the final name of the film.

If someone invests in a movie, and at the time of the investment the movie is titled CONAN- THE BARBARIAN, and after production, the name is changed to CONAN THE BEGINNING, the investor still has claim to the proceeds from the second title.

Ahhh, wrong. You are only entitled to what is agreed to within a contract. Not for projects that may come about during or after. This is why people have contracts. Contracts have a strange way of spelling things out. Drew, if your comments are the case, then Vilma Radford would have been entitled to 5% of the PGF - why did she not recover?? It wasnt because Roger stiffed her in court - he never showed up.

Edited by Melissa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

July 6th, 2010 Kitakaze interview with Idle Hour suit witness Gary Record...

kitakaze = KK

Gary Record = GR

KK: Are you a friend of Bob Heironimus'?

GR: Yes, I am.

KK: How long have you known him?

GR: About 60 years.

KK: How did you meet?

GR: Oh... his parents came up from Missouri. They had a two ton truck. We met here in Yakima.

KK: Do you remember going with Bob around 1970 to see Waylon Jennings and Jessi Colter do a show?

GR: Yes, I do.

KK: Do you remember where the show was at?

GR: (pause) That would have been the Saddle Tree. The Saddle Tree Club

KK: And who was with you?

GR: Oh, let me think. It was Bob, Glenda, that's Bob's wife. Her sister, Diane and Bob. That's her husband.

KK: The Clifts, you mean? Bob and Diane Clift? Diane was Bob's sister?

GR: No, no. Diane was Bob's wife's sister.

KK: Sorry, thanks. And do remember Bob having any important conversation at that show?

GR: Well, he talked to someone about the movie - Patterson's movie. You see, they had left him in a bad way about it. They never paid him for it.

KK: So you know about Bob's role in the movie as being the Bigfoot, the guy who wore the suit?

GR: Oh, sure, I do. Of course, yeah.

KK: And who was this person Bob was talking to?

GR: Al. Al DeAtley.

KK: You knew Al DeAtley?

GR: Sure, I knew him. I worked for him for 10 years.

KK: Worked for him? You mean his pavement company?

GR: That's right.

KK: What did you do?

GR: I drove truck.

KK: I know it's a very long time ago, but do you remember anything that was said between Bob and Al?

GR: Oh, I'm not sure. I don't think I was right there. Bob wanted to get the money Roger promised him.

KK: You weren't standing next to Bob at the time?

GR: No, I don't think so. I wasn't right there. I saw him right after. He wasn't too happy. Roger had promised him $1000

KK: And did you know Roger personally?

GR: Yes, I did.

KK: What can you tell me about him? His personality, I mean.

GR. Well, he was out to make the quick dollar. He never would work. Always trying to make it rich.

KK: What was his reputation like in the community at the time? What did people think of him?

GR: Scheister. We are a farming community, you see. We were farmers. He wanted the quick dollar. He was trying to make movies in Dry Gulch. It didn't pan out.

KK: What about Bob Gimlin? Did you know him, as well?

GR: Yes, I knew him. As an acquaintence.

KK: But you knew him personally? You met him, I mean.

GR: Oh, yes I did.

KK: And what can you tell me about Gimlin? What was your impression of him?

GR: More of the same, I guess. Just out to make the quick buck. He was an alright bronc rider.

KK: What was his reputation like? Like, around Yakima. What did people think of him?

GR: Alright, I guess. He wanted the quick buck like Roger, wanted to just ride rodeo. He drove freight for a while.

KK: Let me ask you about something different, if I may. I want to ask about Bob going down to California and doing the movie. Did you see Bob right after he returned?

GR: Yes, I did. Just when he come back. He showed me the suit. Wanted to show me what it looked like.

KK: And where was this?

GR: It was in Wiley City at one of the watering holes there. There were two of them.

KK: Was that the Idle Hour Tavern?

GR: I think so, yeah. Or it was the other one.

KK: And what time of day was it when Bob showed you the suit. Was it day or night?

GR: I'd say it was about 9:00 pm at night or around there.

KK: And how may times have you seen that suit?

GR: Just the one time.

KK You never saw Bob with a suit again?

GR: No.

KK: Do you know how long he had it?

GR: I think they came and got it the next day just after that.

KK: Patterson and Gimlin, you mean.

GR: That's right.

KK: Have you ever heard any rumours of Bob Heironimus being in Yakima or any other place in a Bigfoot suit other than the one time in Bluff Creek?

GR: No, I haven't.

KK: What would you say is Bob's reputation in Yakima?

GR: Just normal, I'd say. A normal community friend. I still see him once in a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

wrong, thats testimony, evidence would be if it was backed up by a second person

I tried to edit but it wouldnt let me, lol........

I was mistaken , but my principle was good......hearsay evidence

Bob H saying he was at bluff creek with Roger and Bib G.........hearsay evidence and not admissible

Roger or Bob G. also saying Bob H was there.......also hearsay evidence but admissible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Notes from my July 2010 interview with Howard Heironimus...

I have been swamped today with work. Posting all of my interview with Howard Heironimus will take time I don't have in the next 48 hours. I will toss some nuggets from that interview in handy point form...

- HH has no idea what the dead read horse thing was. Did not even slightly register. It did not come from him.

- HH saw the suit twice. Once in the back of Opal's Buick along with Gary Record and a few other people parked beside the bottle shack in the parking lot of the Idle Hour Tavern. Once at Opal's house. It was taken away one or two days after Bob returned from Bluff Creek.

- HH met Bob Gimlin before Roger Patterson did.

- HH characterizes Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson as having been inseparable and united in a drive to get rich.

- HH used to live with Bruce Mondor and his sister Patty Mondor (Patterson) before Roger married her. Bruce and HH were best friends. HH first met Roger when he would come to see Patty Mondor. HH liked him because they were both cowboys, as he described.

- Roger came to HH in late '66 or early '67 and asked him to be a part of a movie about Bigfoot so they could make money.

- Roger asked HH if his brother Bob would be interested in being the Bigfoot. HH told Roger to ask Bob himself. Roger had Gimlin ask BH. HH said it was before BH and BG would go riding together in the hills around Yakima.

- HH and BH met Gimlin when he was a bartender at place beside ****'s Cigar Store. I may have misheard the "****'s" part.

- Roger and Pat Patterson moved into HH and BH's grandfather's home which was bought by Willis Mondor, Pat's dad.

- HH at Roger's home watched him make fake prints using casts he had and one foot-shaped stomper in the soil of the garden at his home. He wood use various weighted objects to impress the casts and foot. This matches Jerry Merritt's description of finding left foot only prints in the soil of the garden beside his home that he suspected Roger had faked to get his interest in Bigfoot.

- HH said Roger shaved the manes of his ponies to remove cockleburs. Roger never mentioned using pony hair for a suit. Roger had no suit when they started filming Bigfoot in early '67.

- HH described Bob Gimlin as being a smooth-talker and wheeler-dealer. He said Bob did not later in Yakima have a bad reputation.

- HH said that often when he and/or BH would see Roger at the Idle Hour after the PGF was shot that Roger would be drinking wine and promise that money was coming. Roger promised BH $1000 for wearing the suit but to all the men in his Bigfoot movie he never specified the amount he was supposed to give them.

- The only time BH borrowed Opal's Buick was for the trip to California. Both BH and HH had their own cars.

- There were four Heironimus brothers. One died in a car accident many decades ago. The other never had any involvement in Roger's Bigfoot ventures.

- HH said that every man in the cowboy photo were Roger's main friends until BH went to Bluff Creek. After that Roger cycled through a number of people that he used for promoting the film and each in turn got sick of Roger.

- HH said that Roger and Bob Gimlin remained partners until Roger died and then Pat Patterson took over the film.

- HH never knew Al DeAtley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

July 6th, 2010 Kitakaze interview with Idle Hour suit witness Gary Record...

my friends would back me up also Kit, thats why they are friends.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...