January 23, 2011

Expanding on the Bob H Story and Occam's Razor.

*Photo of Bob H at the time of the Patterson film. Bob is pictured standing next to his Corvette.

You know, when I first started to think about this, I forgot one very important rule of investigation -- you must brush off what you think you know, and evaluate what you find. Sometimes the truth can get bogged down in details that mean nothing and stories that are designed to mislead.

Expanding on my earlier article on this issue..........

One thing is for certain. The only way Bob H's story works - is you MUST believe Roger Patterson is a con-man and all around horrible person who pulls the wings off butterflies and kicks puppies. If you take away this "Patterson is a con-man" -- then what? Which is why (I think) Kal Korff fires the first shot right out of the gate in Long's book. Bob H, Kal Korff and Greg Long want people to believe Bob H, but in order to do that (because their evidence is shakey at best) they must bring Roger Patterson's credibility into question, then destroy it. One of the most common tactics is to destroy the credibility and reputation of the person in question - in this case "Roger Patterson" so one story can appear more credible than another.

We hear about PR smear campaigns all the time - this is just another example (in my opinion). Yes, Roger did not always repay loans, but that does not make him guilty of being a horrible person. We have heard about the camera from the Shepards Camera store, and how Roger was convicted of Grand Larceny. Yet, when these issues are confronted - then we find out Roger simply forgot to return the camera. Roger then returned the camera in good working order and the charges are dropped. Roger was convicted of nothing. Why do we not hear the whole story, but instead hear the worst of the situation? Answer, because that is the intent of a smear campaign to make one person look better than the other. Smear campaigns can be used to pit one reputation against another - and that is exactly what we have in this case.

Roger is not accused, nor does he admit, to sitting in the local bar, telling lies and making up big stories, that would be the Heironimus Boys. A person who does not repay loans, is a far cry from a con-artist or convicted felon. I have heard many stories about Bob H and his brothers - which include that local bar, but these are not my stories to tell. Lets just say, Bob H and his brothers were no angels, and I would rather run into Roger Patterson than Bob H and his brothers any day.

I have not read one interview, where Greg Long or Bob H do not take pot shots at Roger Patterson.

On another note. If you look at the Radford Contract you will see the words "for expenses in connection with the filming of "Bigfoot- Americas Abominable Snowman". One thing that keeps getting missed is simply this --

Vilma Radford signed a contract in connection with the filming of the Documentary - not what was ultimately produced, which is what we have today the "PGF". These are two separate films. Much has been made out of the fact that Vilma did not recover "all of her money". I think I know exactly why. When Vilma filed her suit in court, the film she was attempting to collect on, had not been finished (the documentary). There was no "5%" of anything, because there was no documentary, "Bigfoot-Americas Abominable Snowman". I have not seen any actual court filings, but If I had to guess, I would bet money on Vilma trying to collect money off the second film, the "PGF" - which is why the judgment came down the way it did. Vilma and her attorneys would have to prove she was entitled to money from this second film, which is clearly not the case. If Vilma was not trying to collect on the PGF, what else could she possibly think she was entitled to that was earning her 5%??

The Documentary and the PGF are were two separate projects. One was planned and everyone knew about(the documentary) the PGF happened after Roger and Bob returned to Yakima, Roger received a phone call from John Green then Roger and Bob packed up and went to Bluff Creek, based on what Roger was told by John Green. I have never seen it said anywhere that John Green had anything to do with the filming of a Documentary, or that he was feeding information to Roger Patterson for the filming of this Documentary. These were two separate events. Roger did not call up Jerry Merritt and the guys and say, "Okay we gotta pack up and head to Bluff Creek guys, we may have something down there to add to the Documentary."

It is possible to have two different things happen during the same time period.

Also, much has been made out of Patterson not showing up in court the day of the Radford case. Well, if your guilty of what your being accused of in these types of proceedings - what is the point in hiring an attorney and showing up, when you are willing to accept a default judgment. Which is exactly what happened. Vilma received an award by the court for a little more than $850.00. Accepting a default judgment does not make you a horrible person, it means you understand what is going to happen and see no need to fight it out. I have actually heard Attorneys say to clients, "If you know you owe this money, and they can prove it, why waste your time and money by paying me. Accept the default judgment and just get it over with." Oh, and by the way. This non-payment would have been "Breach of Contract" not "Embezzlement" as evidenced by the actual document produced by Vilma Radford (in Greg Long's book). So, the Embezzlement charges are false as well. Embezzlement can hold criminal charges - but not Breach of Contract. Too bad some have been misinformed about this as well.

No, I am not saying what Roger did in the case of Vilma Radford was acceptable behavior. But, lets recognize the situation for what it really was. Roger did not con Vilma out of anything. In fact, he signed a contract. Con-men do not do that. Con-men do not sign their names, so the victim has something to show the cops or the courts. That just flys in the face of what a con-man is.

Oh, and something else. Has anyone else noticed the time between signing the Radford contract and its due date? The contract was typed up May 26, 1967, the due date was June 10, 1967. That is less than 1 month for payment in full of $850.00. That is roughly 16 days. IF Roger Patterson was known to not repay loans, and was a con-man, what made Vilma Radford think Roger Patterson could repay a loan of 850.00 in 16 days? I don't think Roger had the absolutely horrible reputation that keeps being discussed. I think people in Yakima recognized the issues Patterson faced, and simply looked the other way. But of course, Greg Long can't say that - or Bob H, because then Rogers reputation remains intact and people who evaluate Bob H's story must take an even closer look at Bob H, and I know Greg Long and Bob H did not want that to happen.

So, in the end, if you strip away all the allegations of felony convictions, fraud, Embezzlement and con-man, what are you left with? Which is why I do think it highly likely Bob H did in fact loan money to Roger Patterson for this documentary.


Why would Roger Patterson promise to pay Bob H $1,000.00, when Bob Gimlin had been promised nothing... Bob Gimlin spent more time in the woods during this ordeal than Bob H. Doesn't make sense does it? Would Bob Gimlin approach Bob H about loaning money to Roger to continue the project? Sure, I think he might. Why? Even Bob Gimlin admits, Roger offered to reimburse Bob G his expenses during these expeditions, but Bob G recognized Roger could not afford to do so - so he never pushed it. But, a loan Roger may have needed is different than Bob Gimlin helping to put money in someone elses pocket (Bob H), when Bob G himself had not been paid a cent.

We are also taking it for granted that Bob Gimlin knew what the topic of this "meeting" between the two men was about... Bob Gimlin may have simply been asked by Roger, "Hey, Bob, would you mind asking Bob H to come over to my house for dinner next week - I have something I would like to discuss with him." That is a very strong possibility, when you take into account human pride when asking for money or anything, for any reason.

I also think the easiest explanation for Howard H not wanting to give an interview to Greg Long, is simply because --Howard was friends with Roger. Howard lived with Roger and Patricia(in Rogers home)for sometime. Maybe Howard wanted nothing to do with yet one more of his brothers games (games which Bob H and others admitted to... sitting in the Idle Hour Tavern).

I say, we strip away what we have been told - and maybe we will find the truth under that. I think I just may have.


  • At 2:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    RP didn't just occaisionally refuse to or fail to repay loans or bills. He did this every single time he had the opportunity to do so.

  • At 5:45 PM, Blogger df said…

    if your planning an elaborate hoax ( not saying that the pgf is a hoax) and you put a man in a costume..your entire hoax requires the secrecy of the man in the costume..the last thing that your going to do is not to pay the man in the suite. His secrecy is the glue that keeps the hoax believable...also if you see the image of the second bigfoot in the film which is a real image it brings me to this question. ..if bob.h.was truly bigfoot then the.second creature was also a man in a suit then why hasnt bob h. ever brought this up? simple he was never there...

  • At 7:27 PM, Blogger df said…

    so what your saying is the credibility of patteson is based on his past credit score? How high does someone's credit score have to be to be believable?
    So i guess what your saying is if patterson paid his bills on time that would prove what? Now Bob H admitted that he would be part of some huge hoax of deceit and lies for a few dollars which obviously means he can bought for money.How does that make Bob H. credible ? How many times has Bob changed his story on the costume? First he says patterson made it from a dead horrible smelling horse that he described in detail though when he teams up with Phillip Morris the costume changes to a custom made step in gorilla the fact its mathematically impossible for Bob to be in the film not to mention the ridiculous looking costume they came up with.

  • At 1:57 PM, Blogger df said…

    simple math says its not Bob a costume.Lets use Bob H's numbers.Bob H. says he's 6 ft 2" Bob H.also states he's 6 ft 7" in his bigfoot suit.Its an easy deduction that the head if the custume addds 5 " to Bob 's height.The added room in the head is needed to fit the football helmet that Bob H. claims he was wearing and to allow room for Bob's head to fit.The average height of a man who stands 6 ft 2" tall is a conservative 10" high now add the 5 inches that Bob says adds to his height and you have the head if his costume being 15 inches high.Its a fact that Patty's upright head to height proportion is 6 to 1. Now multiply 15 inches by 6 and you get 7 ft 6" inch height not the 6 ft 7 inches Bob states. The most Bob's costume head height can be is under 13 inches now subtract the 5 inches that his costume head adds to his natural head height.Simple math says Bob's natural head has to be under 8 inches high to conform to the proven proportion of Pattys upright 6 to 1 head to height proportion to keep Bob's 6 ft 7 " height to be true. Now look at Bob his so called clone of what he says is the bigfoot suit he wore in the Pgfilm.The head is obviously out of proportion to the figure in the film which supports the above math.Bob H. you may be able to cheat the lie detector though you cant cheat math...


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link