He gave precise wrong directions. At first he said it was 5 miles in when in reality it was 20 miles up a winding dirt road. How could he forget something like that? What context should I put it in?
A person can legitimately have failures of recollection for a real experience. He was there once, and may not recall that distance (40 years later) accurately. He had no reason to remember how far he drove on a dirt road even when he did it at the time. If descrepancies like this are an outright sign of lying, then we have to regard the differing accounts of P&G the same way. It means that if Patterson and Gimlin said different things about the encounter (and they do), then one or both are lying or simply weren't there at all.
When one tries to compare the testimony of P&G versus Heironimus, you can't ignore a profound fundamental difference. P&G are making an extraordinary claim in that they say they filmed an unclassified wild bipedal primate in California. Heironimus is making a less than extraordinary claim by saying he wore the suit that was supposed to trick the world into thinking an extraordinary creature had been filmed. To believe P&G you have to accept the existence of Bigfoot, while to believe Heironimus you only need to accept the existence of hoaxery.
Yeah. Fixing fences and getting some rest afterward is more important. Don't you think after 40 years he's tired of this crap? (Biscardi's not exactly a highly respected interviewer, BTW.) He refused an interview with KTAU, too; his wife shut the door on the reporter. So what?
Gimlin is being accused of continuing to cover-up a hoax by anyone who would think the PGF is fake. Heironimus is a key individual because he is claiming to be the one who wore the suit. He was friends with Gimlin and has always lived just a few houses away on the same street in Yakima. He maintains that Gimlin was the one who asked him to wear the suit (for Roger) and that he also helped him put the suit on at Bluff Creek. So BH is saying that BG is lying right now when he insists that BH was not involved at all. Gimlin has had multiple opportunities to confront BH in public and clear up this terrible difference in testimonies. You would think that if BH really wasn't the guy in the suit, that Gimlin would have little problem in proving this to any audience that would hear their open discussion with each other. That Gimlin refuses to do this can be taken as being very suspicious. Heironimus is willing to publicly confront Gimlin, but Gimlin won't do it. I would expect Pattycakes to want that encounter so that Gimlin would have the chance to really put Heironimus' claim in the trash. No dice on that, yet the believers seem satisfied anyway. Concerning Biscardi, no matter what Bigfooters think of him his radio show with BH was handled very well. He gave his Pattycake guests and callers the opportunity to directly confront BH and ask him questions about his claim of being in the suit. Heironimus answers them all with no hesitation and full confidence of his story. He genuinely appears to be an honest and "average guy" that is recalling his 40 year old experience as being inside the Patty costume. There are some questions that he simply cannot answer because his experience did not give him the chance to know everything possible. He is not shy to say he doesn't know (or cannot know) certain things.
For me (and probably others), the "holes" in BH's story are signs of honesty and not complex fabrication. He recalls the events to the best of his ability, and if something doesn't appear correct he doesn't just make something up. I get the impression that BH doesn't care much if there are people who don't believe him. This is to be expected from a "regular guy" who has done nothing outstanding in his relatively normal life as a beverage delivery man in Yakima. He is no kind of limelight-seeker and really prefers his privacy. When he is interviewed, he seems willing to talk openly and candidly. There seems to be no real indication that this man is lying about being in the Patty costume. Holes or odd facets of his testimony are not immediate indicators that he is lying. Remember that he is only recalling wearing a Bigfoot suit for Roger Patterson, not claiming that an undocumented wild primate was caught on film.
Bob Gimlin issued a statement through his attorney.
Why doesn't he confront PGF skeptics or BG? It's really a shame that BH is willing to allow believers to question him on live radio, but Gimlin won't give PGF skeptics a chance to question him. If BH had simply given a statement through attorney (I wore the suit), you would probably call it a worthless cop-out. I wonder if Gimlin's attorney believes that it
wasn't a guy in a suit. I could easily imagine that his attorney has warned him about making any statements that name Bob Heironimus, because BH could sue him.
He's told his story many times over the years. It doesn't change.
I thought he changed his position to say that he could have been hoaxed.
Yep. And Heironimus wouldn't take on with a tester of Roger Knights' choosing.
Did Knights set up a lie detector test for Bob Gimlin?
Why not? Most companies keep good records from the time they start business.
I'll give you some of your own medicine... "Ask him yourself." It's not much of a problem for companies like Morris' to discard sales receipts after legal time statutes have passed. If he had no sales records at all from 1967, it doesn't mean he never sold any gorilla costumes to anyone in that year. An invoice for Patterson would be a great thing to have right now. Instead, we get his testimony of talking to Roger, selling him a costume, explaining how to bulk-up the shoulders and simulate big arms, and then seeing it on TV not long afterwards.
He says. Evidently, BH had a suit and was scaring folks around Yakima. Someone else could have called saying he was Patterson, or Morris may have disremembered.
Morris' recollection of selling the suit to Roger came only months after he sold it. It was when he saw on television that a guy named Roger Patterson filmed a Bigfoot. He recognized his suit (with customizations) on TV. He shipped the suit to the post office in Yakima in Patterson's name. If somebody ordered the suit pretending to be RP, then they also had to pretend to be RP when they picked it up at the PO.
I think you're getting the story mixed up. One of BH's stories was that he saw the film on TV over 30 years later and suddenly realized that was him. Morris contacted Long claiming he made the suit. Long included it in his book. Long didn't seem to care that the two were describing entirely different suits or that BH claimed variously that Chambers made the suit and that Roger did.
It seems that Roger gave Bob the impression that he had made the suit entirely by himself. BH couldn't really know that that was true, and he probably didn't really care. He may have later been told or heard that it was made by Chambers and thought this was true. In all honesty, Heironimus should not be expected to give a definitive declaration of who actually made the suit. He only really knows what Roger told him. Morris' testimony that it started out as his gorilla suit (with mods) makes sense for the situation.
Only you would believe that makes sense. He couldn't do it because he didn't do it. He may have sold Roger a suit for a reenactment for the documentary, but that's not what's in the film.
Yeah right, because NASI demonstrated that the subject in the film weighs 1,957 pounds.
I must have missed the post about the Dynel, but you've been shown the kind of suits Morris was making in 1967, haven't you?
Yep, I've seen them. With certain modifications you can make yourself a Bigfoot.
Oh, I'm not the one who's desperate here.
You are so confident that Bigfoot exists, that you will say stuff like that. Swagger Lu!
hehe my mom and dad aer 
I do not like them
Bob was a taxidermist, not a professional tracker, so, yes, he was an amateur. He did find them, though. So did Laverty and crew a day later. 
lmao