Image on the left is Bob Heironimus in a suit built by Philip Morris, said to be based on the same suit he allegedly wore in 1967. The image on the right is the creature in the Patterson/Gimlin Movie, copyright 1967, 1968, 2008 Erik and Martin Dahinden.
Four years ago tonight, on the Internet Radio program the Jeff Rense show, a group of investigators, authors and journalists and television producers (Greg Long, Kal Korff, Bob Kiviat and Michaela Kocis) gathered to build up a case that the most famous piece of evidence of Sasquatch, the Patterson/Gimlin Movie, is a hoax, citing a book called The Making Of Bigfoot: The Inside Story, written by Long and introduced by Korff. The build-up was for a gentleman named Bob Heironimus, who claimed to be the man in the suit in the film, and claimed that Patterson and Gimlin were in on it. Heironimus has gone on to pretty much not have much of an impact on those who think the film is real. The story of Heironimus has come into the spotlight again thanks to an impending documentary by Korff and Martina Tycova, a Czech investigator and supermodel, and a book by Heironimus which promises to answer all of the Bigfooters' questions, published by Prometheus Books, the same publishers of Long's book. I think that the controversy surrounding all this will continue as long as both sides of the argument are unwilling to give an inch, those sides representing Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus. Much of the Bigfoot community is convinced the film is the real thing, while Korff and Heironimus contend that 100 Yakima, Washington residents back up Heironimus and hardly anyone backs up Gimlin except the Bigfoot Community. Well, my point is, Heironimus, Korff and the alleged 100 Yakima residents have only hearsay and allegation to go on regarding their supposed proof, while Gimlin has a film to back up his contentions, and not just a film of a creature, but a film of a creature making tracks. As the work of M.K. Davis has proved, the creature does leave visible tracks on the sandbar. The film has been analyzed by many credible and qualified scientists and special effects artists over the years and has been found to be an interesting enigma, if not absolutely authentic. Heironimus and his testimony has changed quite a bit during some of the intervening years since the announcement that he was supposedly in the suit, Bob Gimlin's story has maintained itself and has not changed over the years. What we have here is a case of one party telling the truth and one party lying. It is up to you to decide who is the truthful one, but I will part with these words of wisdom from Daniel Perez-you can assassinate the character of Roger Patterson, but you will never be able to assassinate the subject of that movie film.
2 comments:
Why don't you list all the details regarding how Heironimus has "changed" his story. I'd love to hear. Provide actual quotes. I'm sure your audience would like to hear your evidence that Bob Heironimus is a liar. You must have a great deal of evidence.
Greg Long
Author, The Making of Bigfoot
Greg, Heironimus' own words have condemned him. After four years, all we have is hearsay and allegation and rumor on your side, whereas with Gimlin, we have a film to back up his story. Where's the suit, Greg? Where is the confession from Gimlin? Where are there photos of Heironimus getting into a suit with Gimlin and Patterson presiding? Short of these things occurring, in my opinion the film shows a real creature, mainly because I may have found a bump on a cast of "Patty" which corresponds to a bump we have in our own feet. Can I absolutely prove that is what it is? Of course not. I am hopeful of going to a Bigfoot Conference in Ohio in May at which Dr. Jeff Meldrum is going to speak. IF I get to go, I will take the cast with me and have him examine it to see what that bump is, whether it is a natural bump or a casting artifact. I have already presented, ad nauseum, Heironimus' inconsistencies and contradictions, and so has Roger Knights. I do not recall in my post calling Heironimus a liar, that is what YOU have implied. Guilty conscience perhaps? NOWHERE in my post did I call Bob Heironimus a liar; I left it up to the readers to decide. My audience is already very familiar with Bob Heironimus and his contradictions and inconsistencies. Why would a man, who is allegedly a cowboy, not be able to tell horsehide from Dynel, if he is indeed a real cowboy? And don't give me this BS about Howard Heironimus telling his brother that, THAT was not in your book, no matter how you may spin it. Wouldn't a cowboy who rides horses pretty regularly know what horsehide looks like, and at least know the difference between that and Dynel? What about when he told KATU-2 out of Portland, Oregon that the man who created the suit was John Chambers, the man who created the suits for Planet of The Apes, and NOT Phillip Morris? There is, of course, always the chance that he was QUOTED as saying that, since he did not actually say it on camera, but where would the media get the idea that he had said that? Greg, your strawman arguments didn't work in 2004, 2005, 2006 OR 2007, and they will not work now. You and your ilk have already been exposed as opportunists who just want to debunk something, and why not make it the most famous piece of wildlife photography ever? Until you can prove that Heironimus is telling the truth with something OTHER than hearsay or allegation or rumor, and give me solid facts that do not contradict each other, or perhaps present photos of him getting into a suit, or perhaps a recorded clandestine conversation with Bob Gimlin saying that he hoaxed the whole thing, or perhaps the actual suit turning up, I will continue to believe Bob Gimlin and question Heironimus. Sorry, but that is the way it is, Greg.
Post a Comment