The "Story told by Bob Heironimus "

For the most part, I dismiss Bob Heronimus. Why? Because his story is filled with mistakes and omission which are later explained away as - too much time has passed, or "I was mistaken" after conversations he has had with Greg Long. Heck, even Greg Long has done his level best to explain away some of these larger mistakes in Bob H's story.

What do I think happened? Well, for a long time this $1,000.00 payment Bob H alleges he was stiffed out of has bothered me. Here is why.

At this point, all we are going on is the word of Bob H and now Howard H. We don't know what Roger told Gimlin to ask Bob H. If we listen to Greg Long, there was a meeting at Roger Pattersons house with Roger and Bob H, where this alleged $1,000.00 was spoke of in some form. The only possible witnesses to this conversation would have been Bob Gimlin and Patricia Patterson. I highly doubt Roger Patterson jumped on the phone and invited anyone else to be present during this conversation. Who was it that told Greg Long this meeting took place at Rogers house? It wasnt Bob Gimlin, because Gimlin has refused to talk to Greg Long. I think I can reasonably assume it was Bob H. If it was Bob H who told this to Greg Long, then why did Bob H not discuss who else was present during this meeting. Greg Long only discusses Bob H and Roger Patterson. Did Bob H forget there were about a half dozen others standing around witnessing this "promise to pay $1,000.00".

Comments after a meeting by Bob H, to his friends do nothing to prove an actual agreement for anything. These people, unless they were at Roger Pattersons home, can not testify to what was actually discussed between Bob H and Roger Patterson - anything they heard from Bob H after the meeting, is heresay.

Now, we have Howard H coming out of nowhere to establish another link to this $1,000.00, although past attempts for Howard to help clear his brothers name had been met with silence. No one before this revelation by Kitakaze ever mentions Howard Heronimus having any involvement at all. Bob Gimlin also knew Bob H, he lived right down the street from him. According to Greg Long eventually it was Bob Gimlin who went to Bob H and asked him to meet with Roger at his home. Why didn't Roger just go to Bob Gimlin and ask he help with this meeting in the first place? Roger was friends with Bob Gimlin too - good friends in fact. Oh, and there is no mention of Howard H being offered money to keep his mouth shut.

There are rumors and inuendo that others were witness to this "promise" to pay $1,000.00. Although none of those who state they witnessed this "promise" say they were offered anything to keep their silence.

We are lead to believe, Bob H was a man who had very limited funds, because his only job was being a fruit picker. Well, we also know Bob H owned a corvette, and used that car in Drag Racing (during this time period). I also know Bob H has some how managed to acquire more than 2 pieces of property. I also know he lived on a working ranch, owned by his family. Bob H also bought and sold horses and cattle (during this time period). Which makes perfect sense, as he did live on a working ranch, and he did loan a horse to Bob Gimlin..I am assuming Bob H did not keep this horse in the garage. Huh, not bad for a fruit picker.

Who are these new "witnesses" (according to Kitakaze) to the "promise to pay $1,000.00?" Witnesses after the fact, do not count. Anyone can say anything later, especially to people who were not present during the conversation. Names given so far, have omitted this information in any interviews given in the past. Now, they remember. More than 40 years later. This is the only time I have ever heard the arguement for memories that improve over time.. Why would each one of these people now remember such a conversation, and each one of them offer this information seperately? You would think this important information that would have been offered in the past. This is very convenient to say the least.

I think there is a strong possibility this was a loan for the filming of a documentary. Bob H had the funds, and we know a meeting of some kind took place between Roger and Bob H.

Kitakaze has asked a good question.

Also, does anyvbody want to take a swing at how Roger and Bob had enough money for three weeks in the woods and for chartering a plane to deliver the film? In one of Gimlin's versions, he took time off of work, but in another he was between jobs at the time so he could have time to be in NorCal for three entire weeks. Al DeAtley said no way he was funding any expeditions by Roger before the film. Where did Roger and Bob get the bread to do this?

We already know Roger went to Vilma Radford for a loan. We know this because Vilma had a contract drawn up. It wouldnt shock me, if any agreement between Roger and Bob H was sealed with a handshake. This meeting was also held in private between Roger and Bob H. So, who knows why Roger asked for the money. We also know that Roger asked someone else to help get a meeting with Vilma Radford - so he could try and secure the loan. We know in this situation Roger is now said to have asked Howard H to help get a meeting with Bob H, with Bob Gimlin ultimately securing the meeting. Huh, pretty similar situation...

I have no problem at all thinking Roger may have asked Bob H to be an investor in this documentary. None at all. Roger had already discussed this with other people - Vilma Radford for one, this documentary was not a secret. It also appears someone else is not aware of the events of this situation. According to Kitakaze's post above, Al DeAtley said there was no way he would be funding any expeditions prior to the film. So, where did this money come from? The only person we know was approached for a loan - was Vilma Radford, but we also have Bob H jumping up and down about $1,000.00.

Question I have is this. Would Bob H be more likely to tell the world he was stiffed out of an agreement by Roger, or attempt to get his money by not just saying he was owed money but to try and get an even larger return on his investment by saying - "I was the guy in the suit". It's clear to me Bob H was not the man in the suit. Why? His story keeps changing and the important details he has gotten wrong. When these errors are pointed out, he changes his story and attributes the mistake to years...

Then, we have this. An interview Bob H gave to a Seattle Washington Television Show:

Reporter: Do you think your entitled to be paid something?

Bob H: (shrugs his shoulders)It’s my turn, lets put it that way. Since I was never even recognized, at all, by anybody. Maybe, you know, maybe I’ll get my thousand dollars back. Who knows.

Bolding mine.

The word "back" says to me Bob H was expecting to have money re-paid, not recieve payment for services he performed. I have never heard anyone (waiting for a paycheck) say (for example) "I worked 40 hours for you, I want my money back." "I roofed your house, I want my money back." No, when you perform services the request is, "I worked 40 hours for you, I want to be paid." Using the word "back" implies you gave something of value, more than your time, and you expect to see a return of what you gave. You can not recieve back the time you put in at work, which is why you are paid for that time. You pay "back" a loan, you are "paid" or another popular phrase is "I want my money" for work performed. I find it interesting that Bob H supporters would have a problem with the use of my summation in this regard when we have this:

The relatives say they saw the suit two days after the film was shot. No date was given by Long for Hammermeister's observation, but it apparently came well after the relatives' observation, as implied by the word "still" in the justification Heironimus gave Hammermeister for requesting his silence: "There was still supposed to be a payola on this thing, and he didn't have it

So, it is apparently okay to analyze the use of each word when it comes to supporting the unsubstanciated claims of Bob H, yet no one else.

Interesting way to make a case.

According to Greg Long and Kitakaze, it was already known around Yakima that Roger wasnt the best at repaying his loans. Would Bob H have been willing to come forward and add his name to the list of those who have already said they loaned Roger money, and never seen a dime? Or, did Bob H, who was known (and admitted) to sit at the local tavern with his brothers, telling lies and making up stories, have decided it would look better for him to not admit he loaned Patterson money, but to say he was in the suit. Saying he was in the suit would be far more profitable if he could prove it, by this time (2004) he knew he would never recover money owed to him because of a loan made to Patterson.

Only there has been a big snag in that - Bob H cant seem to tell the same story, and gets important details wrong. So, now he is in the position of defending himself, and still not making a dime.

Also, something worthy of consideration. If you were willing to pay someone money for a job - would you feel you needed to go through others to make the offer, or would you simply make the offer? If someone is looking for financial backing - then they might want to feel out the idea with others who know the person. If I was willing to pay someone $1,000.00 even today, I would just ask them. Why include others? Now, if I wanted to ask for a loan, I might ask those who know the person, "what do you think they might say?" Before I had the door slammed in my face.

This speculation on my part could very well account for the extra money Roger Patterson had to hire that plane to shuttle the film, and pay for the time spent by Roger and Bob at Bluff Creek.

Seems pretty darn reasonable to me.