Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[The Shrike]

Plus, wouldn't "bending over" at the end support Bob H's claim that he stepped down into a hole or something?

 

[kitakaze]

You wrote, in "26 reasons alphabet soup with Roger Knights,” item B, on BFF:



Before we get into this, would you please answer my repeated requests for the names of the six witnesses. Surely you asked the three you interviewed who else was there.

I assume you’re counting Bob Heironimus as one witness you interviewed, Howard Heironimus as another, and Gary Record as a third. Am I right? Even if the latter two weren’t always present at the trunk, Bob should have been, and so he should have known all the names.

Of the missing three, one probable witness, Bill Heironimus, is dead. That leaves two living witnesses. Heironimus claims Hammermeister was there. That leaves one. Was it Russ Bohannon? I have a recollection of you hinting somewhere that it was. Please confirm, and tell me if Bob Heironimus (or someone else) told you it was he.

PS: Actually, there's a second unnamed witness, whose name is needed, because BH said that "six people saw the suit," meaning six besides himself.

The three Idle Hour suit witnesses that I interviewed in addition to Bob Heironimus were Howard Heironimus, Gary Record and Bernard Hammermeister, all about six years ago. Howard Heironimus confirmed that none of the other Heironimus brothers were present and none had any involvement with Patterson accept for him and Bob. Russ Bohannon was not one of the suit witnesses.

I would need to speak with Bob again to get the names of every person present, but I'm not sure that he may even recall now.

 

[kitakaze]

Thanks for that lead—it’s very relevant. But I note, having just visited it, that that thread is 57 pages long, and pretty meaty! I won’t be able to respond today (Monday), as I’d promised. I’ll need another week.

PS: I'm up to page 2 and so far I think you're right about RP's hoaxing Merritt, and about his motives.



You don’t know that for a fact; you only know what Gary Record told you—and he might have had a motive to change his story from a true one to a false one. I.e., not to stab Bob in the back, as he might have seen it, or not to get in Bob’s bad graces.

Did you ask him if he’d been interviewed by me?
Did you ask him what he’d said to me?
Did you ask him if I’d misrepresented what he’d said?

I’d like to know more details of that sort.

You want to find evidence of Heironimus participating in hoaxing in Yakima when all the witnesses tie him to a single event and you're recognizing that Jerry Merritt was in fact hoaxed multiple times at his own home and the one with the clear motive and ability to do that was Roger Patterson.

This is a transcript from my interview with Gary Record. Your name was not brought up in the conversation...

Transcript from my interview with suit witness Gary Record...
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.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Plus, wouldn't "bending over" at the end support Bob H's claim that he stepped down into a hole or something?

I barely even see a Patty in those pictures, let alone a bending version.

I love that this is supposed to be some startling evidence for the argument that Patty isn't merely a fella in a costume.

Again, it's just another example of Roger's bass-ackward thinking: "Bigfoot may not be real, although it could be a Tulpa, but Patty is real, see, it even bends in this blurry, half-arsed picture."

 

[Vortigern99]

If I've been following along correctly, I think Roger has reported that Bob H. does not remember bending over in the suit that day. Ergo, Bob H. could not be in the suit. Because here's a blurry picture where you can kind of see Patty bending over maybe!

Human beings, of course, remember such tiny details during events that occurred over 40 years ago. The mind is an incorruptible repository of precise memories capable of being recalled exactly decades later. It is known.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

If I've been following along correctly, I think Roger has reported that Bob H. does not remember bending over in the suit that day. Ergo, Bob H. could not be in the suit. Because here's a blurry picture where you can kind of see Patty bending over maybe!
Human beings, of course, remember such tiny details during events that occurred over 40 years ago. The mind is an incorruptible repository of precise memories capable of being recalled exactly decades later. It is known.

My eyesight must be buggered!

I'm still waiting for Roger to post his interpretation, via Crayon à la Sweaty, showing exactly where this Bending Bigfoot actually is.

This is getting into Bob Gimlin Behind a Bush territory.

 

[Vortigern99]

In the pics Roger has kindly provided, I can sort of see what he means. Patty appears to be slanting to the right compared to the previous frame, where "she" is fully upright. But that may be a consequence of the camera streaking left and thus distorting the image.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

In the pics Roger has kindly provided, I can sort of see what he means. Patty appears to be slanting to the right compared to the previous frame, where "she" is fully upright. But that may be a consequence of the camera streaking left and thus distorting the image.

I honestly can't tell from the frames he's presented. I can't make out where the blur ends and the Bigfoot-bend begins.

What bothers me is that he presented those frames as though they were actually evidence of something.

The man who told me that we should maybe ignore the diaper-butt expects me to see evidence of Patty bending over next to the creek. I'd be more capable of seeing the braided Bigfoot hair and bloody hand-prints, tbh.

 

[Roger Knights]

Here's the article (32 pages) I promised Kit in which I argue that Heironimus was a Yakima-area Bigfoot hoaxer before the PGF. (I've beat the deadline by 7 minutes.)

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/08/09/heironimus-apesuit-before-10-67/

 

[Cervelo]

I barely even see a Patty in those pictures, let alone a bending version.

I love that this is supposed to be some startling evidence for the argument that Patty isn't merely a fella in a costume.

Again, it's just another example of Roger's bass-ackward thinking: "Bigfoot may not be real, although it could be a Tulpa, but Patty is real, see, it even bends in this blurry, half-arsed picture."

Looks like a fishing expedition to me

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here's the article (32 pages) I promised Kit in which I argue that Heironimus was a Yakima-area Bigfoot hoaxer before the PGF. (I've beat the deadline by 7 minutes.)

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/08/09/heironimus-apesuit-before-10-67/

It is beyond me how you can use that as an argument that the PGF wasn't a hoax, and that BH wasn't in the suit for the PGF....

 

[Vortigern99]

Any evidence of Bob H. being involved in bigfoot hoaxing prior to the PGF would seem like fairly compelling evidence that he was involved in bigfoot hoaxing during the PGF.

 

[kitakaze]

The best response doesn't need 32 pages. It doesn't need three paragraphs. Roger asserts BH was a hoaxer. He accepts Patterson was a hoaxer. Jerry Merritt being hoaxed down the street from Patterson is a fact. He, his wife, his son did not make it up. It's history. Patterson relied on Merritt for his Hollywood connections, the use of his Dry Gulch attraction, and the use of his home. Heironimus involved in hoaxing, Patterson involved in hoaxing, Patterson goes to Bluff Creek with Heironimus' horse.

No reliable evidence for Bigfoot ever. Plenty of evidence of Roger hoaxing. No tulpas necessary.

 

[Roger Knights]

Apologies to all. I should have waited a day before posting my article, “Was There a Heironimus Apesuit BEFORE 10/67?”, knowing that I usually find corrections the next day. So I revised my article. The old link I gave to it will redirect to the new one. Here’s the new one:
http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/08/10/heironimus-apesuit-before-10-67/

I’ve now made two substantial changes to my article.

First, I had written, on page 8, “Maybe Lenington saw the suit on more than one occasion,” one of them being the summer of 1966. Then (today) I realized that that was too early a date for a 1967 Buick to be seen, so I deleted discussion of that option.

Second, I just realized that I’d missed the agenda-driven reasoning behind Kitakaze’s comment on page 23:

Kitakaze—Then read it more slowly and/or carefully until you come to the place where the only incident he [Warehime] can attribute any manner of knowledge about is the Idle Hour showing of the suit in Opal's Buick trunk.

On the contrary, 1. The only incidents Warehime had direct knowledge of were different: A) participating in an unspecified hoaxing event, and B) seeing the suit, or a suit, taken along on a Jeepin’ outing.

2. Warehime had no “manner of knowledge” of the supposed PGF suit being displayed at the Idle Hour, or of Bob Heironimus displaying a suit, or of seeing a suit displayed in a Buick, as claimed by Kitakaze. Read on, for proof:

Long began the heart of his interview of Warehime with the words, “I suggested that Heironimus might have put on a costume to help Patterson convince the public of the existence of Bigfoot.”

Warehime countered by saying that “a bunch of guys” did it, adding, “It was kinda fun, go get drunk, put the suit on, and run out in front of somebody.” “It was kinda fun” implied direct knowledge and even personal involvement in such hoaxing.

Next, after a non-denial denial by Warehime to a question about the suit being in his tavern, Long quoted Warehime as seeing the suit “out in the Ahtanum” while about to go Jeepin’. This implies direct knowledge of the monkey suit—and not at the Idle Hour.

Then Long paraphrased Warehime as follows: “he wasn’t sure the car with the suit in it was a Buick. . . . Everybody knew Patterson and Merritt were trying to make a movie.” That “documentary” was a hot topic in the middle of 1967, soon after the 3-day filming in May, suggesting this was the time of his Jeepin’ adventure.

Then Long asked, “Are you convinced Bob Heironimus was the guy who wore the Bigfoot suit?” Warehime replied, “Oh, yes. Yeah. That’s the way Bob walks.” That’s not direct knowledge, only inference.

I warned, on page 4, against conflating “the monkey suit” used in roadside hoaxings in 1966 (TMoB, p. 331) with the PGF suit displayed in late 1967 (TMoB, p. 332). But that’s just what Kitakaze did in the following quote:

Kitakaze—Merle Warehime quote-mining hack context restoration (Merle Warehime interviewed by Greg Long in the summer of 2000)...
"Bob Heironimus was the guy who wore the (PGF) monkey suit. It was always a joke. So when it started getting blown out as it did, it was funny. Nobody said anything about it because we didn't know if it would get Bob into trouble or not."

First, in America, though maybe not in Canada, an editorial interjection like the “PGF” above is conventionally surrounded by square brackets. If parentheses are used, Americans assume the interjection was part of the original quotation. Tsk, tsk. Second, Kitakaze did not restore context; he obliterated it. The context of “the monkey suit” was the 1966 local-area sighting reports.

Following this, Kitakaze accused Neanderfoot of quote-mining:

Kitakaze—No, you're textbook quote-mining. . . . your deceptive quote-mining makes it appear Warehime had firsthand knowledge of hoaxing with a suit. This is a very shifty contextomy...

But Warehime did have “firsthand knowledge of hoaxing with a suit.” What Kitakaze probably meant and forgot to append to that was, “by Heironimus.”

But even that isn’t correct. It would be more accurate to write, “Warehime didn’t say (or admit) to firsthand knowledge of hoaxing with a suit by Heironimus.” We can’t say for sure, pace Kitakaze, that he didn’t have such knowledge. And, since he gave the appearance of trying not to point the finger at Heironimus, as I argued on page 5, it’s possible he was in the know.
==============

I haven’t read anything here for the past 3.5 days, so I’ll probably be way behind in catching up on my replies. Plus I’m a bit pooped, or burned out, with writing that article and reading 24 pages of that BFF thread on the Hoaxing of Jerry Merritt. Plus I have other irons in the fire.
==============

BTW, I always thought the events at Merritt’s were too crazy to take seriously. I put the matter in my gray box. But after having read a lot about them, a possibility occurred to me that I can live with: Patterson and Merritt colluded to hoax Merritt’s wife, with a hired mime in the suit. Why hoax her? Two possibilities occur to me:

1. Because she and Merritt were on the outs and he wanted to rattle her, for spiteful amusement.
2. Because she didn’t want him to get involved with Patterson’s Bigfoot activities, and he hoped to convince her Bigfoot was real. (??)

Whaddaya think, Kit?

 

[Roger Knights]

I'm catching up on my replies, starting on page 79.

:
Les Johnson, Patterson’s brother, a successful rancher] told me that he and Roger went to the Bluff Creek area after the filming on an expedition sponsored by Ford Motor Company and J.B. Hunt (now owner of J.B. Hunt Transport Inc.). Les provided ten horses for the expedition. He recalled that people in Humboldt County treated Roger like a hero. The expedition failed to find a bigfoot, but did find tracks.
—Chris Murphy, Bigfoot Film Journal, p. 52

This is a claim, and a weak one at that.

Why weak? In one paragraph three potentially disconfirming sources are named.

I’ve read this claim elsewhere at least twice, online. It might be possible to confirm it if there were a story about it in the Klam-ity Kourier, a weekly paper based in Willow Creek. It would have occurred in only three years: 1968–70. (By 1971 Patterson was too sick to have participated.) But that would be a lot of microfilm to scan. If someone knows the year, it would help.

 

[Roger Knights]

The linked article is demonstrably inaccurate on several key points. Here's one:

[Baker's] hairy ape was as anatomically correct as possible, with fake ape extendo arms that stretched his human arms to ape-like proportions.

The first part of this sentence is not correct; the '76 Kong was designed to be bipedal, a human-like ape who walks on two legs. This decision changes the entire anatomy of the animal, including and especially the belly which in Baker's creation is not the bulky rotund bowl of a true gorilla, and of course the leg length. The suit is absolutely and intentionally not "as anatomically correct as possible".
The second half of the sentence is only correct part of the time, in shots where Kong doesn't need to flex his fingers. The writer of the linked article concedes this later in the article, but retains the inaccurate statement quoted above.

You’re right. The author, Barry Keith, should have written:

[Baker's] hairy ape had fake ape extendo arms that stretched his human arms to ape-like proportions, except in fight scenes where Kong needed working hands. But Patty has ape-like long arms and working hands, all in one “suit, which Hollywood couldn’t match then.

That’s what was in his mind to say—see the first paragraph of his section, “Ape Attribute #2—Long Arms.” He just needed a copy editor. Or, if it wasn’t in his mind, the claim in the second sentence above is one that can be defended by others.

This is not a diligent researcher or writer, . . .

You’ll need to cite more than just that one flub to prove that.

. . . and the majority of his claims can be dismissed as biased and baseless.

Non sequitur.

 

[Roger Knights]

Ha ha, I like way modifying and fixing saddles are nothing like making saddles. Classic!

So if I can fix a flat, or change the oil, I can make a car?

Wrt many products, it’s much easier to fix them than to make them. For instance, fixing (converting) a McClellan saddle to make a Western saddle merely involves (I assume) drilling a hole, inserting a shaped peg, screwing cross-pieces into the bottom (and top?) of the peg, and adding glue. Replacing the metal stirrups with Western wooden stirrups wouldn’t be a big deal either. Both could be done with ordinary tools.

But making a saddle requires a special awl for sewing in leather and plenty of expertise, and probably some other special tools to do the work efficiently. An absolute beginner would make a mess of it.

 

[Roger Knights]

Plus, how can you tell Patty is slouched over 20 degrees when we're viewing her from the back? Please show graphically.

I wrtote this to Resume:

I measured the angle on Figure B in Krantz’s Bigfoot / Sasquatch Evidence, page 113. The forward lean of the torso, measured along the back, is 20 degrees and the forward lean of the back of the neck is 35 degrees.

Here’s the scanned-in image; I used my swing-arm protractor to measure the lean:

There is no profile view like this in the film, but I assume Krantz was able, from his measurements of many frames, to figure out how much she was leaning and to rotate her into this position without too much error.

 

[Roger Knights]

Patterson told BH to walk like an ape so he slouched. Is that what you refer to as bending?

No, I mean bending beyond her ordinary 20-degree slouch, as shown in the frames that follow the frame showing her ordinary bend.

 

[Roger Knights]

Plus, wouldn't "bending over" at the end support Bob H's claim that he stepped down into a hole or something?

No, the “bending” frames come from the end of the first walk phase, which contains many blurred frames. M.K. Davis was apparently the first to notice Patty’s increasing degree of bend in the relatively clear frames therein, and her apparent fall in the blurry final frame (which is actually beyond the frame labeled as “last”).