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.

January 22, 2011

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.

January 2, 2011

Grizzly Bear Cast

Grizzly Bear Casting
(click on each photo to view)

Some time ago I had the good fortune to take a trip through the Glacier National Park. I, we actually, started in Montana and traveled North into Canada. At St. Mary Lake where there was a campground where we pitched our tent there was also a gift shop that my friend and I decided to take a look through. It was in that gift shop that I found this casting for sale. What really stood out to me was the detail in the casting. Since the gift shop was willing to ship the casting to my home, I was riding a motorcycle and was worried about wear and tear on the casting, I bought it and told them where to send it.

After getting back home and having the chance to look up the fellow who made the casting I found out some more interesting things about this particular casting. The casting was made in the Bob Marshall Wilderness area on the bank of the North Fork of the Sun River in Montana. This fellow lived in Montana and was an avid hiker. He told me that since he did quite a bit of hiking he always hoped to get a clear, detailed cast of a Grizzly track and started carrying a casting compound during his hikes. As a side note, he also told me that his mother was an art teacher and that she had concocted the powder that he was carrying from several casting materials and he did not know what casting medium she used or what other additives she might have put into the mix, but she told him that her mix was made specifically to capture details. As we can see her mix worked very well.

The pads or skin of a bear's paw are like the pads of a dog's paw. the skin is more 'granular' if you will, in the way it appears rather than having dermal ridges and large flexion lines, though some flexion lines can be seen in this track.

As we talked he told me that when he found the tracks this particular one was the clearest and most detailed. He also told me that he had some concern about the bear still being nearby as they were obviously fresh tracks. Keeping his eyes and ears open he proceeded to mix and pour his secret formula casting agent into the track in the mud. He was fortunate to not have any problems with the bear that made the tracks and he was happy that he finally found a track that was very crisp and clean, in details that is. He knew that he would have to clean off the mud from his casting when he got back home and hoped that some of the details that he could see in the mud would show up in his cast. He was not disappointed.

You can see scars in the pad of the foot as well as in the toes. The fourth toe, counting left to right, in particular has a scar right in the center of the toe pad which is in the close up. The claw on the center toe shows a distinct wear pattern or chipping of the claw. All of the claws clearly show the concave underside. The overall length of the track is eleven inches including the center claw which is over two and a half inches long from the edge of the toe pad to the tip of the claw. The bear's fur can be seen around the edges of the track and especially behind the large pad.

There is even a flex crease that can be seen below the fourth toe, again left to right, and dimples in the large pad as well as the first toe. Keep in mind that this is a reproduction of the original and it is done with a resin. The original, I was told, showed even more detail than this reproduction. I did not go into detail with the fellow who made the casting as to what his methods for producing reproductions for selling were.

The texture of the mud can be seen all around the track, which has led me to wonder if casting an inch or two around the edges of a track would help in capturing not only any possible hair details but also as a way of being able to measure the overall depth of the track from ground level. The toes of this track are the deepest point in the track, and they measure a full inch deeper than the average surface area of the mud.

While many of the Bigfoot track castings do show a great deal of detail we can only hope that one day a track showing this kind of detail over the whole foot will be found by someone who has some good casting material with them when they find it. I wish this guy had the formula of the material he used, I'd like to have some to compare to common Hydrocal.