Laverty on Bigfoot Claims of Heironimous

Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 11th, 2007

Here’s additional information Roger Knights obtained from Lyle Laverty:
Bob Heironimus’s Fake-Track Claim is Discredited by Filmsite Witness Lyle Laverty
In June 2005 [Roger Knights] wrote:
“It would have been irrational for Patterson to have made the footprints over a week in advance [as Bob Heironimus (BH) claimed], risking their discovery in the interim.” – Knights’ Amazon review of Long’s book
I’ve now obtained a statement from a credible witness—who was accompanied by other witnesses—that no such tracks existed at the site the day before the filming. Here are the background and details:
BH claimed Patterson & Gimlin faked the tracks well before Oct. 20, after which they returned to Yakima, and then weeks later came back to Bluff Creek to announce the filming to the press. (Based on BH’s statements in the book and on the Xzone radio show of Dec. 7, 2006, the hoax-filming occurred the Thursday two weeks and a day before the claimed filming–i.e., Oct. 5.)
BH: “They [P&G] said [right after the filming] they had to go back and make tracks.”
Long: “In other words, make fake tracks of Bigfoot at the film site?”
BH: “Yes. ‘We have to go back and make them. We’ll either do it today, or tomorrow, and we’re out of here and come home.’”
–The Making of Bigfoot, p. 350
He was more specific about the timing on Seth Shostak’s “Skeptical Sunday” radio program (archived on the Internet at http://podcast.seti.org/media/AWA_04-07-25.mp3), Aug. 1, 2004, 36 minutes into the show, wherein he stated:
“After we made the film I was told [to mail the film, etc.]. They [P&G] said in the meantime they were going to take those plaster casts that Roger had [in Gimlin’s truck] and they were going to go back up and make the tracks.”
Recently, when browsing through my files on the PG Film, I happened to notice that Forest Service timber-cruiser crew-chief Lyle Laverty was quoted as saying that he had been up Bluff Creek and gone past the filmsite just “days” before he had discovered the tracks, at which time they had not been there. An hour after I’d read that fact, I got a nudge from the back of my noggin that this quote had great significance, if it was accurate. I therefore e-mailed Mr. Laverty, who is currently the State Director for the Colorado State Parks system, and asked him:
“I recently read (but have mislaid my printout) that you said that you had come past the Patterson film site only days before you discovered the tracks there on Oct. 21, and that there were no tracks there then. I’d greatly appreciate it if you would confirm (or disconfirm) that you said that, and give me an estimate of how many days prior to Oct. 21 that might have been.”
(I now know that Laverty actually photographed the tracks on Monday Oct. 23–the next workday–based on his statement to that effect to Jeff Meldrum, quoted in Bigfoot Times, June/July 2005, p. 4, col. 2.) On July 6, 2006 he responded:
“As near as I can recall, I passed by the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th [presumably before 1:30]. I was part of a timber sale preparation crew working in Bluff Creek the entire summer. We operated out of a portable camp at Notice Creek during the week and returned to Orleans on the weekends.”
Laverty’s observation satisfies Greg Long’s challenge (in an e-mail to Dmitri Bayanov & Ray Crowe, and cc’d to others, on May 23, 2004):
“I have PROVED that the film was shot [weeks] earlier than October 20, 1967. Regarding the BIGFOOT TRACKS, they were FAKED [just] after the filming. Prove they weren’t!!!”
Done!
Note that it’s unlikely that Patterson would have lightly changed his mind on the timing and decided to fake the tracks on his second trip down, because the whole rationale for his (supposedly) giving BH the film and the suit to transport was that Patterson needed to remain at the site an extra day to fake the tracks. He must have thought that making the tracks at that time was so important that to ensure that it was accomplished he took the otherwise-unnecessary, risky step of entrusting BH with the film and suit.
Laverty’s observation not only discredits BH’s claim, but also rules out any track-hoax scenario in which the tracks were made before the 19th. (OTOH, because Laverty and his crew didn’t discover the tracks until the 23rd, not the 21st, that would have allowed more time for hoaxers to have faked the tracks after the 20th. But that’s only a theoretical possibility. It would be a very reckless hoaxer who would have announced a filming in advance of making the tracks, because someone (e.g., one of the locals in Willow Creek, or a reporter) might have trekked to the filmsite at once, or while the tracks were being made, to check them out.)
Furthermore, the absence of tracks on the 19th rules out the possibility that a genuine film was shot days before the 20th, but was post-dated for some innocent reason. (I had put forth one version of this theory myself, in a six-page paper titled “I gotta touch it to believe it.” In it I speculated that DeAtley had told Patterson that he wanted to see the film first, to make sure it was genuine, before letting Patterson announce it to the world. I figured that DeAtley was afraid Patterson would, by naming him as a backer (as he did in the local newspaper story), implicate him in a silly-looking hoax. Dan Perez talked me out of this theory in late May 2005, but my article was accidentally published in the August 2005 issue of Bigfoot Co-op, about a year after I’d sent it to them. I’d assumed it had been rejected and forgotten, because I’d had no feedback on it, like other unprinted papers I’d sent BFC over the years.)
I should add that Long himself must have realized that BH’s tale of early-October track-faking was hard to credit, and therefore he proposed an alternative (but even crazier) scenario (his italics):
“However, if Heironimus saw the Bigfoot Jamboree banner stretched across the highway upon his entrance into Happy Camp around the time of the Labor Day weekend, then Patterson shot his film long before October 20. This earlier time would have provided plenty of time for Patterson to have the film processed by Kodak in Palo Alto. On Patterson’s second trip to Bluff Creek in mid-October, they would have pretended to look for Bigfoot for nearly a week, then after casting fake Bigfoot tracks on October 20, rushed into Willow Creek …. No one would have known that weeks before, perhaps as much as claimed seven weeks, the film had been shot, mailed, and processed. Thus, when Patterson told Heironimus at the camp after the filming that, “We have to go back and make tracks,” this statement could very well [hah!—RK] have referred to going back many weeks later, a second trip in October, to make the tracks.”
–Greg Long, The Making of Bigfoot, p. 421
Nice try. But there are six strong objections to that theory:
1. P & G would have employed different wording if they had been telling BH at the camp that they intended to leave the scene entirely and then come back to it at a later date. I.e., they’d have said, “we’ll … come back”—not “we’ll … go back.” “We’ll … go back” could only have meant they intended to return to the location they’d just left—the film site.
2. P & G wouldn’t have said, “We’ll either do it today, or tomorrow, and we’re out of here and come home” (p. 350) if they were referring to something they intended to do weeks later, on a return visit to the area.
3. BH wouldn’t have said, “After we made the film I was told [to mail the film, etc.]. They [P&G] said in the meantime [i.e., while he was mailing the film and driving home] they were going to take those plaster casts that Roger had [in Gimlin’s truck] and they were going to go back up and make the tracks.”
4. P & G wouldn’t have had those fragile plaster casts with them and spoken of using them if they hadn’t intended to fake the tracks on that trip.
5. If P & G had intended to fake the tracks weeks later, they’d have left the filmsite at the same time as BH, or only hours thereafter, in which case there’d have been no reason for them to have entrusted him with speeding the film on its way, or to have disassociated themselves with the suit. (Their remaining in possession was risky only if they’d remained around the site.)
6. And a September filming date is ruled out by the intensity of the red foliage in the film–in both the first three minutes, and in the fourth.
Long’s contention that going back today or tomorrow “could well have referred to going back many weeks later” requires him to twist the testimony of his star witness. And yet he has the immortal rind to crown it with this:
“The standards of evidence for the Bigfoot believers are extremely low. I have much higher standards, you know, like honesty and integrity.”
–Greg Long, speech to Int’l Bigfoot Society, March 27, 2004

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.


10 Responses to “Laverty on Bigfoot Claims of Heironimous”

  1. DWA responds:

    Geez.

    And here I thought we already knew that BH and GL are totally off base. BH indicted himself neatly with his “testimony” that the best costume of the 1960s was a stitched up ol’ smelly horsehide, did he not? Or do I have the wrong “I was Patty” here ;-)?

    GL’s shrillness takes care of him. Too many caps, man!

  2. squatchwatcher responds:

    If that truly is a real bigfoot on Patterson’s film, which I myself believe is, why is this Bob Heironimous trying to say he is the one in the costume? I guess I just don’t have the understanding of someone wanting their fifteen minutes of fame. Is BH still claiming that he was the guy in the suit? I haven’t heard anything from him since “Is It Real?” interviewed him. Why doesn’t he just give it up since he can’t really prove anything. I’m still asking, “Where’s the suit?” It’s just like everybody saying to the possibility of a real sasquatch, produce a body, then we’ll believe you.” Well, I’m asking produce the actual suit and show how the hoax was done and then I’ll believe that ol’ Bob H. was wearing the stinking suit!

  3. shumway10973 responds:

    I can understand skepticism concerning the film, but to out and out lie about something so important…I just can’t understand people who have to do that. Besides, if DWA has the right story in mind (the suit used), I want their tailor. That would be the best ape suit I have ever seen. Too many variables with in the footage itself that prove it real, for anybody to successfully disprove it as a hoax.

  4. kittenz responds:

    The problem with this is, though it’s intriguing, it still isn’t evidence. It’s really just one person’s word against another’s.

    I don’t know if there is a way to get to the truth behind the P/G film and tracks. In the end you just have to choose whether you believe one person or the other.

  5. treeclaw responds:

    Well I just choose my truth based on the information before me. As I said before, IMO, Patterson’s movie looks like a human in a monkey suit. Exactly who was under that suit does not matter to me either. Again, I don’t go by words as much as what the picture is telling me.

  6. fuzzy responds:

    WHAT A JUVENILE MESS! If this is indicative of the intellectual level of Bigfoot research, I think it may be time to just quit and go fishin’!

  7. awalrus1 responds:

    Loren,
    Has anyone like Dr. Meldrum looked at the Patterson casts yet? In detail? to say whether they have dermal ridges and such?
    steve

  8. Kopite responds:

    Bob Heironimus couldn’t even make up his OWN mind about when the tracks were supposedly faked or when the footage was supposedly hoaxed. One minute he claimed the footage was hoaxed weeks before Patterson announced it and then on another occasion he claimed the footage and the tracks were faked on THE SAME DAY that Patterson went into town to announce the footage to the media and that was the reason why Patterson supposedly gave him ‘the suit’ to take home…because Patterson didn’t want ‘the suit’ anywhere near him when he announced the footage to the world.

    Heironimus just made it up as he went along and couldn’t remember what he said to people previously. Roger Knights noted about 30 major story changes and contradictions from Bob Heironimus.

    One of the most telling “gotchas” was when Heironimus said the creek was dry and that Patterson was filming him from his horse and deliberately shaking the camera. Both claims can be proven to be 100% untrue by looking at the footage. The creek is wet and in flow and the camera level is low to the ground. Bob Heironimus was busted years ago for his nonsense. Roger Knights did a stellar job of that.

  9. Kopite responds:

    treeclaw wrote:

    “As I said before, IMO, Patterson’s movie looks like a human in a monkey suit.”

    Which human in a monkey suit does it actually look like? There must be hundreds of examples of humans in monkey suits so can you direct me to any particular human in a monkey suit that you have in mind that looks like the PGF? I’ve never seen ANY human in suit that looks like that, nor moves like that. None at all. Not even close. Bigfoot hoaxes crop up almost daily. There are a gazillion of them on You Tube, but none look anything like the PGF. Nor do any of the bigfoot or bipedal ape/ape man suits that we see in films or on t.v.

    I’d like to know what you are looking at that I haven’t seen yet. Thanks.

  10. Roger Knights responds:

    As “Bipto” (Brian Brown) once said, “Patty looks like a guy in a suit until you see a real guy in a suit.”

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement

|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.