Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kitakaze

Bob Heironimus On Pax Tv's Lie Detector.

Recommended Posts

AaronD

How much money we talkin was offered for the suit? If enough to retire I'll go look for the daggoned thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Red flags?

I know the odds of someone finding the 2nd reel, a full confession, and the original suit all in the span of a few months has got to be pretty astronomical, but hey that's no reason to be skeptical.

First I'm taking too long and now too short.

Can't win for losing in Bigfootery.

The suit was the first, then came the confession work, then came original copies of the first and second reel. I'm still dealing with legal and contractual issues with all of them. People don't just give these things up with a please and a thank you. I don't want just one of these things, I want them all, and more besides. Go big or go home. I'm not going to do what Long did.

Just because he has access to every Holy Grail there is to prove a hoax doesn't mean he can't enjoy a good argument with Sweaty every day over the same little details.

If you pay attention to my posting history, you will see there is often times where I disappear for days and sometimes weeks at a time.

Bigfootery doesn need to wait upon my schedule or deal with my obstacles. Roguefooter can get in a car and drive to Yakima and show Gimlin the plaster pour, trackway, and cast display scenes which are all second reel and watch him give up the game right there. Why hasn't Rogue done that?

You can drive over to Bob abd Bob's street, get BH, walk nine doors down to BG, knock on the door, ask Gimlin why he had Chico or why he used to trust Heironimus so much, and boom, 44 years down the tube right there.

Bigfootery doesn't need to wait for me. It can do any of the things I've done and it can go to the source and it can ask the questions it should have all along instead of kiddy gloves and softball with their "American hero."

How much money we talkin was offered for the suit? If enough to retire I'll go look for the daggoned thing!

I can promise you you won't find it. My finding it was as much luck as anything else.

Money is not what is bringing the suit to the public. It's leverage.

Maybe Roger Patterson was buried in the suit?

It went out of his possession in 1967. Frankly, the man was to foolish to have it.

Kit, what are you going to do if you pull the suit out and it falls to pieces from dry rot after being in storage for 50 years?

Tears and crazy glue.

I have asked Bigfootery this myself. It's a very real issue I'm facing because the suit hasn't been worn since 1967, nor maintained, nor repaired, and it is damaged and aged. This is only natural after 44 years.

When it does come out for the filming for the doc, the last thing I will do is put it on. At most it will be moved only once. I am thinking at this point the best thing to do is get John Vulich or another FX artist friend of mine to examine it in detail and recreate it stitch by stitch, all for the camera for the documentary. This stuff doesn't just make itself happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Particle Noun

So, I'm new to these forums, and to the personalities and long running arguments/debates going on here.

From a relatively fresh perspective, the absolute and howling irony of this thread is delicious. This is the reverse of the Ketchum thread, with both sides behaving toward the other in a near exact mirror opposite of how they behave in the Ketchum thread....

Great stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I respectfully call BS on anyone saying they have the suit. Several private parties have offered a LOT of money as reward for someone coughing up the suit as proof. And this "I know for a fact that it exists but I can't tell you anything about it" is troubling. It almost sounds like a skeptic is believing what a 3rd party is telling them without any real proof that they are usually screaming about.

Because my genius was ignored in my earlier post, I'd like to ask this again: Why would BH have to "perfect" a walk to simulate what we see in the film? Because he viewed the film and decided he would fabricate this whole hoax story and he took the time to try to duplicate what he saw in the PG film. He needed to perfect the walk so it looked like what he saw in the film--not to imitate a creature that had never been filmed before!! If he were hoaxing the event, what is there to "perfect"?

I also thought it was said he naturally walked that way if memory serves me correctly. Does anyone recall this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

ok i watched the PAX footage that started this shifty thread.now may i ask. BH claimed he went down to the" local watering hole".opened up his trunk and told the boys to get a good look at this suit.it later disapeared of course.can i ask has anyone of the "boys"came forth and said they saw the suit?this he said she said stuff is making my head hurt.and the other question is i keep seeing size comparisions on BH,BF,patty.but when i watch the footage the things way off in the distance and then "zoomed in".how can one use these photos for comparison?one seems 10 ft away the other 100ft.isnt there a loss of perspective in size?what do they use for a size comparision?

If the he said/she said makes your head hurt, why ask for it? If dealing with a historical event, you inevitably have to deal with the accounts of the people who were there.

There were five witnesses to the Idle Hour suit in the trunk when BH returned from Bluff Creek.

I have interviewed 4 of them and the fifth, Russ Bohannon, unfortunately has Alzheimers and dementia. Here are interviews with two of those witnesses from July 2010...

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.

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.

The only friend of Heironimus' that also knew Patterson and knew about the hoax who was in the military at the time of the hoax was Jim Falon who worked with Patterson driving miniature wagons Roger built with ponies up until 1966. Falon was in Viet Nam from '67-'68. The person Roger Knights spoke to was Gary Record who made very clear he was not in the military at the time of the hoax. Roger Knights is welcome to come and clarify exactly what he is talking about here...

"In addition, I've located a witness, GR (seen in a photo on p. 409), to whom BH showed the suit in 1968, a date he is sure of because he was in the armed forces throughout 1967. He described the suit to me in detail, and its features match neither the Morris suit shown on p. 460, nor Queen Kong, namely: a top-and-trousers affair, lacking a zipper in the back (i.e., not Morris's back-zippered jump-suit); no rubber waders in the legs; no latex chest piece; no breasts; not made of leather; cotton-lined or -padded; lightweight (upper portion only two or three pounds); no shoulder pads; not oversized (no barrel chest or thunder thighs); hair four or five inches long (Morris suits' hair was 1-3 inches--p. 449); head not oversize; no helmet inside."

The initials and photo Knights refer to is of Gary Record. Gary also made clear to Knights that the suit was never removed from the trunk and could not confirm or deny any of those features. Anyone can interview Gary Record and confirm what Knights did to his testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Bigfootery doesn need to wait upon my schedule or deal with my obstacles. Roguefooter can get in a car and drive to Yakima and show Gimlin the plaster pour, trackway, and cast display scenes which are all second reel and watch him give up the game right there. Why hasn't Rogue done that?

It's simple Kit- I told you from the very beginning that the only thing that matters is tangible evidence or a confession. Defining his words may give up the game for you, but not for me.

Bigfootery doesn't need to wait for me. It can do any of the things I've done and it can go to the source and it can ask the questions it should have all along instead of kiddy gloves and softball with their "American hero."

That's kind of like asking the skeptics to go out hunting and find a Bigfoot. Expecting either side to achieve their opponent's goal is pretty unrealistic, and rediculous to boot.

As far as you finding the Holy Grail- if you didn't want to be hounded about it then why did you even bring it in the open? You started the hole yourself- it's only going to get deeper and deeper until you back your claims.

If I had found the suit , knew it existed and had access to it, then what would be the point in debating about it anymore? The game would be over and all of my opponents would be proven wrong in just a matter of time. Coming on here and arguing little details every day would show I'm either lying about it, or I really enjoy wasting my time and energy arguing for no reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
It's simple Kit- I told you from the very beginning that the only thing that matters is tangible evidence or a confession. Defining his words may give up the game for you, but not for me.

So interesting. Who was this man on this Internet forum who was talking about taking your laptop for an in-person interview and you wanted to point out the beard issue so you could judge for yourself Gimlin's honesty and his reactions...

Like Gigantofootecus said- a phone call isn't going to result in much of anything. If an arrangement can be made where I can come up to Washington to meet with Gimlin and sit down at a table to go over these things with him, with actual video footage- then I'll do it. It would have to be after Christmas though and at a time when the roads aren't bad. Maybe there can be more than one of us there.

This is not true at all. I volunteered to go to Washington if it was arranged with Gimlin. There's nothing confusing about that, and there was no debating with it.

Or you could pick up the phone and ask him about the cast display his friend just recently showed him. I'll help you.

I wouldn't even know if it was the real Bob Gimlim I was speaking to, so no thanks. I would rather do it in person and have it on video.

If I'm going to spend my time bothering the man then I'm going to do it in a correct and thorough manner that leaves little to no room for questions.

I would think that you of all people would opt for a more thorough investigation, an in-person meeting with Gimlin rather than a simple phone call, but apparently there's something that you're afraid of.

That's kind of like asking the skeptics to go out hunting and find a Bigfoot.

I'm totally down to go out to a Vancouver Island hotspot and look for Bigfoot with some believers. I am planning to do just that for my documentary.

Expecting either side to achieve their opponent's goal is pretty unrealistic, and rediculous to boot.

Only in Bigfootery is doing the necessary thing and asking the hard questions to the source of a Bigfoot film ridiculous. Your goal should be getting the truth and so what if you have to ask you subculture icon some things that put him on the spot. You want a confession and a confession doesn't just need to be "We did it. We hoaxed the film." Gimlin can show you the film was hoaxed by having his story all fall apart under direct scrutiny and you show him exactly how he's tanking it.

As far as you finding the Holy Grail- if you didn't want to be hounded about it then why did you even bring it in the open? You started the hole yourself- it's only going to get deeper and deeper until you back your claims.

I expect people to ask me questions about it. Right now I'm saying as much as I can without jeopardizing my work or compromising it.

If I had found the suit , knew it existed and had access to it, then what would be the point in debating about it anymore? The game would be over and all of my opponents would be proven wrong in just a matter of time. Coming on here and arguing little details every day would show I'm either lying about it, or I really enjoy wasting my time and energy arguing for no reason.

Let me help you...

- Proving the PGF a hoax involves separate and unique obstacles when compared to trying ot prove the film real by things such as finger or face movement or height calculations. True or false?

Rogue, for the last year and a half I have routinely run into snags, difficulties, standoffs, loggerheads and all sorts of potholes that impede my progress all the time. I don't live, eat and sleep proving the PGF a hoax. meanwhile, I do have a normal life in which I am often home and have time to use the BFF forum and discuss issues with the film in which my offline work is not divulged or is a subject. In this time, things like the plaster pour, cast display, and trackway scenes are not little details to me. When I am dealing with a troublesome issue with some aspect of my documentary that delays progress, and there is an opportunity to get believers to do the work they should be doing, why would I not pursue that?

Do you feel you can come to a place where you understand this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

The suit was the first, then came the confession work, then came original copies of the first and second reel...

I don't want just one of these things, I want them all, and more besides.

uhhhhh.. You want them or you have them? That's a big difference (and it's a rhetorical question). No one would sit on the combined value of the suit, the confession and, the incriminating footage. That's just silly. Sell it all on e-Bay!!

;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

So interesting. Who was this man on this Internet forum who was talking about taking your laptop for an in-person interview and you wanted to point out the beard issue so you could judge for yourself Gimlin's honesty and his reactions...

Who who that guy that had contact with Gimlin and kept ignoring my request to set it up for me when I had the time in early January? Oh yeah, that would be you.

Now you're asking why I haven't done it yet. Go figure.

I'd love to have a long chat with the man, although i wouldn't expect to get much. I certainly wouldn't expect to see any proof come out of it.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I'm not interested in selling anything on E-bay because I'm not in it for the money. Let me give you an example of an issue I deal with...

To show footage in my documentary of the PGF, incriminating or otherwise, I have to be able to do so legally and within copyright laws.

How do I do that, XS?

Do you have a solution for me? I do, but it is no easy thing, so if you have another way for me to proceed, thanks so much, man, you'll have gotten everyone far closer to being able to see the documentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

In this time, things like the plaster pour, cast display, and trackway scenes are not little details to me. When I am dealing with a troublesome issue with some aspect of my documentary that delays progress, and there is an opportunity to get believers to do the work they should be doing, why would I not pursue that?

If you had the suit, or even access to it, then what the heck is the point in worrying about the tracks?? The suit trumps all. It's not a missing piece of the puzzle- it's the proof of the hoax. Even a documentary is a waste of time with the suit.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Who who that guy that had contact with Gimlin and kept ignoring my request to set it up for me when I had the time in early January? Oh yeah, that would be you.

IIRC, you said after Christmas. You didn't restrict to early January. Pebbles on the beach. It's mid-March. When do you have time? I'll help set this up for you. If you prefer, someone else can assist. Name your time.

If you had the suit, or even access to it, then what the heck is the point in worrying about the tracks?? The suit trumps all. It's not a missing piece of the puzzle- it's the proof of the hoax. Even a documentary is a waste of time with the suit.

Answer the same question Jodie asked. What if the suit is damaged? What if it's falling apart after 44 years. You do understand that is a very real issue to deal with, yes? You do understand that fabric and hair and seams can become a mess after enough time, right?

Can you then understand why I feel it would be necessary to make sure the proof doesn't rely on a single thing? I know the challenges I face to well to put all my eggs in one basket.

Do you feel it's wise to put all your eggs in one basket?

Now let's say even the suit is pristine, but it did not come out of the Patterson home. You guys can say it is a replica, nothing more, creatively and lovingly made, but just a replica.

I'll do things my way, thanks, and I won't allow PGF believers to dictate how I do what I do. If you want it differently, you go, you start the journey yourself, and you do it however you want.

Otherwise your protests and complaints mean very little to me.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Preserving and restoring an old costume or mask back to near original condition is not impossible- no matter how fragile it is. I know a guy who has preserved/restored several old pieces, including rotting rubber masks worn in Star Wars and Bob Burns' animatronic wolf used in American Werewolf in London.

I hope the costume comes with some kind of real lineage going back to Patterson, and not some guy wanting to be anonymous. Because a costume with no lineage has a pretty slim chance to convince anybody. It would have to go through extensive research and examination by people experienced in costumes of that time period just to get the basic age and a possibility established.

Would I put all my eggs in one basket with it? It depends on how confident I am that it's real. You sure sounded pretty confident with the "face-melting" comments that you made you about it. Not sure why you're second guessing things now. When you come on making comments like that then you should expect people to call your bluff.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Preserving and restoring an old costume or mask back to near original condition is not impossible- no matter how fragile it is. I know a guy who has preserved/restored several old pieces, including rotting rubber masks worn in Star Wars and Bob Burns' animatronic wolf used in American Werewolf in London.

I won't allow it to be touched by any restoration people. For what? To put it on? No way. It has way too much historical significance. No, I will have a pro like John Vulich study it and recreate it and have the whole thing on camera so people can be a part of the process and see how it happens. Wouldn't you like to see that rather than, oops, the arm fell of, now we have to fix it and in doing so alter the suit from what it was originally.

No, I plan things 15 moves ahead as much as possible.

I hope the costume comes with some kind of real lineage going back to Patterson, and not some guy wanting to be anonymous. Because a costume with no lineage has a pretty slim chance to convince anybody. It would have to go through extensive research and examination by people experienced in costumes of that time period just to get the basic age and a possibility established.

The lineage is direct as it possibly can be without coming straight out of Patterson's attic. I will have someone extremely knowledgable with suits of the time look at it. I actually have some great FX artist connections. Bill is welcome to see it after the documentary, as well.

Would I put all my eggs in one basket with it? It depends on how confident I am that it's real. You sure sounded pretty confident with the "face-melting" comments that you made you about it. Not sure why you're second guessing things now. When you come on making comments like that then you should expect people to call your bluff.

I am not second-guessing myself at all. You think you're going to get a perfect undamaged 44 year old suit? Not going to happen. I can tell Bigfootery now that the suit is not going to be able to just be whipped out and put on for a walk down a sandbar in front of a Cine Kodak 100. It just will not happen as long as I am in charge.

My attack on the PGF is a trident. I've always wanted it to be a trident and that is how I am doing it - three-pronged: suit, confession/explanation, film proof. 1, 2, 3, goodnight. I want it all and I don't care how long it takes. You guy swant less sooner? Have at it and do it yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

To get back to the subject of Bob Heironimus and his obvious deceit, let's just cut to the chase.

I KNOW FOR A FACT HE WAS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

"dry creek"?

"we were off the road a ways"?

"..in a spot nobody could see us"?

"Roger was filming from his horse"?

CompositelandscapePGFstartCrop23.jpg

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...