Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

A New Look At The Story Of Bob H

Recommended Posts

Guest

So Kit, are you claiming now that you have proof that Al DeAtley lied to Greg Long when he said he provided no financial support for Roger's efforts prior to the filming of the PGF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It is poetically fitting that Big Mouth Terrell Owens, who produced, umm, squat this year, is the celebration clip, truly priceless - the man is a legend in his own mind who's status as a parriah relegated him to play 2nd fiddle to Chad Ochocinco, they are the bobsey twins of over inflated self importance.

Not even top 50 performance this year. Bengals finished in a 3-way tie for 2nd worst record (out of 32 teams in the NFL) at 4-12, and TO and Chad Ochocinco are talking about going to the Jets....riiiiight.

The fireworks remark was clearly about DeAtley.

Also, this may come as news to you but an editor is not the same as a Newspaper, Kit - you accused the Newspaper.

Do you even read these posts before hitting the random picture and retort generator button?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

No, BobH claims he was there...therefore: claim.

Not evidence.

Search > advanced search > keyword: eyewitness > user name: Mulder > first result...

Eyewitness accounts ARE evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Someone reciting their experiences, does not constitute hearsay.

For example, BOBH testifying he was in the suit, is not hearsay.

However, someone saying that BOBH told them, he was in suit, would constitute hearsay.

Actually Drew, no that's not hearsay either.

Hearsay is evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them.

If Bob admitted to Mike he was the man in the suit, that's direct knowledge...

however if George states: "Mike told me that Bob said he was in the suit," that's hearsay.

Rule of thumb is, if they were part of the conversation...that's direct evidence. If they weren't and were told a conversation third hand, that's hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm closing this thread as some folks I think here need a cooling off period, because it's getting personal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Okay folks this thread has been shut down for almost 24 hours for a cooling off period.

Let's please begin the debate once again with a few BFF rules in mind. Sarcasm is rudeness!!! The terms YOU or your should not be included when debating facts or an argument.

Let's not get personal, argue the argument not the arguer.

If we keep this in mind...all should be well!!

BFF Forum Rules:

1. Respect For Others

A. All members of these Forums will respect the opinions and presence of other members of the Forums. You are welcome to engage in challenging and spirited debate with other users, but rudeness will not be tolerated. Name-calling, disrespecting other users or throwing personal insults against them will not be tolerated. Flaming another user because of their spelling or word choice will not be tolerated. Personal attacks of any kind are not allowed. Antisocial behavior will not be tolerated.

B. Flaming new members for their ignorance on proper posting procedures, their grammar or spelling issues, or the content of their messages is expressly forbidden. We appreciate our members' concern for new members and invite everyone to welcome them. One of the strengths of BFF is that it has always tolerated new members and its old members have always been willing to answer the same questions over and over again with patience and grace. Please let this continue.

C. Disrespectful personal comments about others, including those involved in the search for Bigfoot or not, will not be tolerated. You are welcome to discuss their work, and comment on their performance, but personal attacks against them -- anything regarded as a personal affront, including criticism of whether they conduct field research or not -- is expressly against our rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thepattywagon

Except that Al DeAtley himself placed himself at the Saddle Tree, confirmed his response to BH in the conversation to take the issue to Roger and that it wasn't his problem, and most importantly that he knew Bob through Roger going so far as to decades later recalling his glass eye.

It's a big, fat deal. Why does DeAtley confirm the conversation and knowing Bob through Roger? DeAtley said he had no involvement with Roger's Bigfoot ventures until after the film was out, yet somehow Roger was able to stay in Bluff Creek for three weeks when he was unemployed and charter a flight for the film to WA. If DeAtley knew Bob through Roger, there should be no way for him to have contact with BH after the film was released and Roger, Al, and Gimlin were out making Bigfoot Enterprises and then barnstorming.

How would Al know whether Bob's request to be paid was for his role as Patty or for his possible work in Roger's documentary? If Al was as uninvolved in the documentary as he said he was, that would make it possible for Bob to mention the "Bigfoot work" he did for Roger, and Al would probably assume it was the Bluff Creek filming, and not the documentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

In the three day filming done in May in the South Fork of the Ahtanum valley Bob played the same roll as Jerry Merritt, John Ballard, Howard Heironimus, and Roger. His role was to be one of the cowboys being led by an old miner and wise Indian tracker. The footage that they used for Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman was reshot for North American Film Enterprise's Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot...

Sasquatch%20The%20Legend%20of%20Bigfoot.gif8eed5c421.jpg

In the middle left image of the frame comps Bob is the second horseman from the last and in the bottom left he is the cowboy in white shirt and black jacket to the upper left of the fire. He had no other role than that. Ballard provided horses, though he and Howard brought their own. Fred Smith provided the camera from KIMA-TV and did the filming. Howard Heironimus is alive today, was a closer friend to Patterson than Bob was, and it was to him that Roger spoke first of the $1000 role to be Bigfoot in the Bluff Creek hoax. Roger borrowed $700 from Vilma that she said was to shoot a real Bigfoot in California. The money was lent at the end of May, when filming had already been done with Fred Smith and a second camera already taken but never paid for from Sheppard's Camera. Jerry Merritt recalls the amount of money they had when he and Roger went to California to copyright Bigfoot was exactly the same as what Radford lent Roger: $700. Jerry himself hade also one week earlier borrowed $200 from George Radford for %10 of the Bigfoot contract.

Neither Jerry, John, or Howard were ever promised $1000 for their role. DeAtley took that footage and spent $3500 editing it into a 96 minute feature that they used for theatres which the Patty footage was at the heart of. The Saddle Tree confrontation occurred in 1970 and there is no way Heironimus could have said he was promised $1000 for his part in the May '67 three day shooting because no one else had any such agreement. It was understood by all the people who were with Heironimus at that time that Heironimus had played the Bigfoot for the hoax and was promised $1000 for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

Doesn't Pat Mason say, in Making of Bigfoot (p139 and 140) that he put up the money and edited the film and then arranged for it's public showing with Roger?

So are there two film versions (by Mason and DeAtley) both being shown publicly, advertised and such, by two men who don't know the other is showing the same footage?

Any chance you can shed some light on this rather odd situation?

Seems somewhat difficult to believe, if there were two versions, that Pat would not be aware of the second version, which he says He didn't know about?

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Well, you read it, right? You read where mason was totally flustered when Long busted it out on him that Patterson was doing the run-around with DeAtley? There were at least two versions just from the 52 minute cut that the BBC gave back to them to use and the 96 minute that DeAtley had cobbled together. The Pat Mason chapter, Al DeAtley chapter, and DeAtley follow-up in the "Death of a Legend" chapter lays it all out. I can post the particulars if you like.

Pat was completely out to lunch because Roger made sure he was out to lunch. Roger made a huge mess making deals with everybody and most of it went into the public record when Dahinden went against Patty P and ANE in court.

Needless to say, DeAtley knew Heironimus and he knew him through Roger. He said he was never funding anything Roger did Bigfoot-wise before the film, but we have him acknowledging knowing Heironimus through Roger, we have Wallace writing Ray Crowe about him being visited in what could only have been NorCal by Patterson and DeAtley before the film came out, and DeAtley himself saying he became involved to get his company out of the red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

Thanks. I'll keep reading.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

It still does not sound credible:

There are two versions of the film, supposedly.Mason did one and is touring with it, Deatley did the other and that too is being toured.Both in the North West. Mason was doing all the bookings and tourings for his version.And he never heard that the same film (almost, ok) was douing the rounds?

Can someone cleaar this up please?

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman
Needless to say, DeAtley knew Heironimus and he knew him through Roger. He said he was never funding anything Roger did Bigfoot-wise before the film, but we have him acknowledging knowing Heironimus through Roger,

Kit,

There is a non sequitur here.

Maybe DeAtley did know Bob Hieronimous. Maybe he did know him through Roger.

That does not mean he knew BH because of anything related to Bigfoot.

A man can get to know his brother in laws's friends and acqauintances through any one of many associations. Like chance encounters at concerts (that happened once for DeAtley and BH, for sure).

They all had more-than-one-issue-lives.

Fister

Edited by Splash7
To fix quote tags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

No.

1) Through the account of Bob Heironimus, his connection to Roger Patterson only concerned Bigfoot stuff and was only through Heironimus' friendship to Gimlin.

2) Al DeAtley denied any involvement with Patterson at all during the 66/67 period after the book leading up to the film. DeAtley considered Roger a nuisance and only tolerated him because of his sister. Indeed, he had total disdain for his cowboy routine and his refusal to work and support his family in a normal manner.

So why does DeAtley know Bob Heironimus and know him well enough to recall his glass eye decades later?. He would have had to see him more than just in passing to remember him that well. Why does Wallace write to Ray Crowe about Patterson and DeAtley visiting his home before the PGF was out. This guy was bee-boppin' and skattin', duping Bigfooter hunters like there was no tomorrow in NorCal. Why are they coming to see him?

His tracks undeniably were the tracks that Patterson said was why he came to Bluff Creek in October. Hook this up with a timeline that just can not be... it ain't right.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBFRPKY

Kitakaze, thank you for enlightening me to the relationship between Bob H and the film "Sasquatch, the Legend of Bigfoot" It's one of my all time favorites. Were Roger, Bob H and Bob G in that movie during the actual riding scenes filmed? Makes me wonder, who wore the suit for the Sasquatch scenes from "Sasquatch, the Legend of Bigfoot" and it also makes me wonder if Bob H. had access to the suit? Or, could Bob H have been approached with an offer of $1000 to wear a suit for the movie "Sasquatch, The Legend of Bigfoot?" Interesting thoughts all. Chris B.

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...