All I know, is that the place I was at, there has not been anyone else there in the last 2 years but me and I found tracks, plain and simple.

I know this, because the string a put in place across a road used to test the theory, is still there, and I have the only tire tracks ever there in 2 years… OR, did someone follow me to a place I’ve never told anyone where I was going and when? The animal exists… now we need better proof… Other than that… I guess that makes me a skeptical believer… if that’s possible….!

One day folks… Just like the Gorilla in the early 20th century… Once it was just a myth by locals… But they do exist, don’t they….!

I don’t know how friendly Bob Heironimus was with Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, but I do know that they have worked together. If you look at this picture, you can see Bob Heironimus at the far right. The guy with the long black hair to the left of Bob Heironimus is actually Bob Gimlin in a wig! You see, he was playing the part of an “Indian tracker” for Roger Patterson’s documentary. To the left of Gimlin is Howard Heironimus, Bob’s brother, and Roger Patterson can be seen at the bottom left.

I also seem to recall that one of the horses taken to Bluff Creek actually belonged to Bob Heironimus. I don’t know which one it supposedly was, but you can see footage of the horses from the famous second reel here.

Notice that the camera pans when it is filming Patterson, Gimlin, and the three horses. This is impossible for a 60’s 16mm camera to do by itself on a tripod and would require someone to operate the camera. If they had someone else go with them to Bluff Creek to film, why didn’t they mention them and why didn’t that person see Patty/talk about seeing Patty? Is it at all possible that the person who played Patty was used as the cameraman and they were able to get away with it since all the attention was focused on the Patty footage? There also might be another issue with the horses (but it’s hard to say due to the terrible color quality of the footage).

I do not find it strange at all that the Patterson/Gimlin film has not been exactly reproduced.

‘Exactly’ reproduced? It hasn’t even been remotely reproduced.

The Bob H suit looks like a fat ewok. It’s a million miles from what we see in the P/G footage.

Why I give credence to the Bob H. story:

1. It is simple. He could have embellished it and had Patterson create a superduper, unbelievably complex suit. Instead, he describes a very simple costume.

2. He makes comments that one would expect, but might not think of, for a person in his position that day. For instance, he relates how he hit the dirt moments after Patterson stopped filming, fearful that some unseen hunters might have him in their sights.

3. Other people claim to have seen the Bigfoot suit in his position shortly after.

4. His build and walk do look to me like shadow images of Patterson’s Bigfoot.

5. The picture in Long’s book of the Phillip Morris manufactured gorilla suit does look like aspects of Patterson’s Bigfoot: the sagittal crest and the shoulders. (I discount Morris’ claim that the Patterson image was nothing but his ape suit, sans face. The breasts and long legs tell a different story).

6. Bob H. stated that the lower part of the suit was made from waders (he thought). To my mind, this explains why leg muscles seem to contract and the leg quivering: the rubber waders’ give and take with each step. Also, Meldrum’s documentary account of Patterson’s film includes a skeletal reenactment of the Bigfoot’s walk, showing a weird circular motion, knee level, that is odd for a living animal but possibly indicative of waders flopping about the knees.

Reasons why I suspect the Bob H. account.

1. I’ve heard that he has change his story somewhat. This is damaging if true.

2. As far as I can tell, Bob and Roger were not real close. This seems odd because Patterson would need someone he could trust completely not to rat on him. Maybe every one involve took an oath. Or maybe Bob H. just didn’t think much about the whole thing until, as he said, he got tired of seeing his image over and over again as “proof” that Bigfoot was real.

Like other posters have mentioned, there is too much bulk and to me the motion looks way too fluid to be faked, that and with all the other oddities, being a female, saggital crest, etc. I just cannot believe that someone could think of all of that, and have the expertise to make the gait look so fluid and real when today no one has been able to recreate something as genuine looking.

For me the PG film looks to be authentic.