Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

A New Look At The Story Of Bob H

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

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.

Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot is a 1977 Ed Ragozzino film adapted from abandoned Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman film by Roger Patterson. There simply wasn't enough to cut a film with only what Patterson shot, and the simple fact was that Roger was no filmmaker and he was using the local TV station guy for the camera work.

Everything on the left in the frames comps is Heironimus, Gimlin, Merritt, etc, and everything on the right is 10 years later and nothing to do with the original film. It's a rebuild of an unfinished film.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBFRPKY

Ah, I see, thanks for clarification. That movie may be a bit hokey by today's standards but It sure was good at the theater in the 70's. Chris B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thepattywagon

Good read!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Here is a great link, worth the time to read the entire page..

http://www.scribd.co...s-vs-Herroneous

Very well done, and Kudos to Roger Knights.

Looks like 43 nails driven firmly into the coffin of Bob H.'s hoax claim. Isn't it true that the current story being told herein includes even more changes in position for some of the issues addressed in Roger's document?

Thanks for the link.

Pteronarcyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thepattywagon

So Roger and Gimlin borrowed "a horse" from BH, and left for California days before Bob.

What horse did Heironimus ride from camp to the filming site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

According to Bob H himself, he rode behind one of the two bigfoot hunters, and the suit was in a sack on the other rider's horse. No mention of how the waders, boots, padding, extention sticks and helmet were transported. I'm beginning to think maybe Ray Wallace hired a UFO take them in. Afterwards it maybe scooted up to DeAtley with the film at the speed of light. Could explain so much.

Miller and Knights have done such a thorough job on this one, I'm now thinking, why has there been such fuss over Hieronimous for the past year?

Fister

Please do not refer to Bob H with any derogatory name.

Thanks,

Splash

Edited by Splash7
Edit out Patman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

As another reminder, this forum does not allow any name calling or derogatory remarks, statements or images of a person, whether they are a member of the bigfoot community or not.

Referring to Bob H as "Patman" is not allowed.

Thanks for your continued support.

Splash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Fister Crunchman said:

Miller and Knights have done such a thorough job on this one, I'm now thinking, why has there been such fuss over Hieronimous for the past year?

Your guess is as good as mine. There is only one thing I am sure of.. IF there is a person in that "Patty Suit" - it aint Bob H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

According to Bob H himself, he rode behind one of the two bigfoot hunters, and the suit was in a sack on the other rider's horse. No mention of how the waders, boots, padding, extention sticks and helmet were transported. I'm beginning to think maybe Ray Wallace hired a UFO take them in. Afterwards it maybe scooted up to DeAtley with the film at the speed of light. Could explain so much.

Extension sticks? Why are you introducing suit features never described nor needed by Heironimus?

He says it was a half mile to the film site. So does Jim McClarin who was there days after October 21.

Roger Knights thinks Bob saying "up the street" and later "down the street" is a significant contradiction.

Try, "I had Chico for three weeks because I was breaking him in for Heironimus as a favour to a friend" vs "Roger borrowed Chico from Heironimus for me because I only had young phillies and needed an experienced horse", nevermind the fact that Patterson said they arrived only the previous Saturday. That is a significant contradiction.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

Kit

Her's what i wrote in an earlier post when you had repeatedly tried to equate BH with Bob Gimlinregarding weak story details:

You keep equating BH with Bob Gimlin as if the weaknesses and inconsistencies in their two stories carry the same significance. They don’t.

You keep asserting or implying that bias in members posting here results in Bob Hieronimous receiving an unfair assessment of his case. That isn’t the case.

Inconsistencies and weaknesses in BH’s story sink him. Because his words and his story are all he has. Gimlin has much more.

BH has no witness placing him in the right area of North California in the right time frame. (Gimlin has Al Hodson and Roger Patterson)

BH only has Yakima people saying he was away from Yakima for three days roughly during the relevant time frame.

Bob Gimlin has Patterson, DeAtley (and Hieronimous!) saying he was Patterson’s sidekick there at Bluff Creek. Niether Gimlin nor Patterson nor De Atley supported Hieronimous’ claim that he was at Bluff Creek.

Gimlin has an acceptable claim to be involved in the making of the film and the casts. Anything that could weaken Gimlin’s case would weaken Bob Hoeronimous’s too. BH claims Roger and Gimlin made the film so any suggestion that we don’t really know who made it weakens Hieronimous, for example. Unless you provide your cast iron proof that Bob is in the film in a monkey suit of course. I can’t wait to see if you have got anything.

Gimlin went to interviews with Roger and toured with the film, and who came forward to say his link to the film was tenuous? Nobody. He has more than words and stories of his own.

I invite you to stop making this untenable argument that weaknesses in Gimlin’s details damage his claim as much as Hieronimous’ s is damaged by weaknesses in what he says.

Hieronimous is a latecomer making some pretty unbelievable claims with hardly anything to back him up. Gimlin has other real participants and tangible evidence of his role supporting him, so his words can have a few inconsistencies without putting him at the bottom of the deep blue sea with Bob Hieronimous.

The extension sticks --broom handles, was it not---were recommended by Morris to Roger Patterson as a way to extend the costume arms, with gloves attached to the stick ends. BH said that he wore the Morris suit. Yes, extension sticks.

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Here is a great link, worth the time to read the entire page..

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35026515/ART-Herroneous-vs-Herroneous

Very well done, and Kudos to Roger Knights.

Thanks for the link Melissa. I thought I had seen something that concisely eviscerated Bob H's inconsistent claims and timelines but could not put my finger on it.

Making one or two minor points is one thing, but the 43 specific points Knight lays out against Bob H's claims, is like watching Muhammed Ali in his prime go against a newbie Jr Welterweight.

This, plus recent work by Fister and a few others with respect to claims made by or related to Ray Wallace are the final nails in the coffin to the whole Bob H?Ray Wallace saga to my satisfaction.

From now on, any of these throughly discredited claims, or claims derived from them, should simply be met with two or three links like this. Won't the silly and sophomoric pictures look all the more silly, sophomoric and unnecessary then.

Unlike the assumptive 'facts' that certain Bob H/Ray Wallace/Greg Long disciples present (which are routinely not only no present in the very references posted, they are contradicted), Knight and others have pointed to specific, glaring, and significant inconsistencies which have occured not over 43 years, but in some cases less than 43 months (sometimes far less than that), which only heighten the myriad problems with Bob H's claims.

Turn out the lights, the party's over...

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...