The Xzone show was pretty much what I expected it to be. Bob Hemonious was neither an articulate bard nor was he a drunken palooka. It would have been nice though if he had been confronted with some of the contrary information that researchers have concluded concerning body ratios etc. But several things he brought up have me questioning the validity of his statements. One is that there were 3 suites and that Patterson was using them to scare people by jumping out in front of cars etc. To that I have to remind myself that Roger Patterson was a grown man and why prankster something that your trying to have taken seriously? But interesting that there were said to be 3 suites. That's a lot of monkey suites for such a small town to go unnoticed and unaccounted for.

But there still remains one huge unanswered question. Why, if Patterson specifically was going to Bluff Creek to make a hoax would he have needed to spend several weeks out in the bush with Bob Gimlin? Why would he have needed Bob Gimlin at all? Patterson and Hermonious could have gone to Bluff creek Shot the film made the casts all in the course of a weekend. And if they chose to they wouldn't even have needed horses which brings up the one thing that Hermonious said that begs for an answer. Hermonious says they had 2 horses with them and Bob Gimlin says they had 3 horses. Unless Bob Gimlin's horse trailor could handle 3 horses how did Patterson and Gimlin deal with the 3rd horse? Seems they would have needed 3 horses to get to the Bluff Creek site with Bob Hermonious. I doubt he would have walked while they rode. In any event a one ton pickup truck would have a time pulling a 3 horse trailer through those mountains.

Here is a paragraph from an e-mail Chris Murphy sent me in December 2006, a few days after talking to Bob Gimlin:

There was no horse trailer taken, as I have been emphatically informed by Dan Perez in an e-mail of Aug. 9, 2006:

Let's see - we've got Ray Wallace flying down from Toledo, Wa., to fake the Blue Creek Mountain tracks and Al Hodgson calling about them, and Roger having his dead red horse/Dynel suit ready just in time to go to California when he could have shot the hoax on Mt. St. Helens where he was when Al called. I guess that makes sense.

Glad that the horse carrying capability of Gimlin's rig has been explained. Its a shame no one called in last night asking the questions that we ask ourselves and I include myself as being in remiss as well. But how does anyone suppose Bob Hermonious would have explained Patterson & Gimlin staying in the field as long as they did only to have Hermonious show up on what amounted to the last day or two and shoot a hoax with them. I can only assume that the general opinion of Bob Hermonious is that he is a liar to the point that virtually the entire Bigfoot community has dismissed him out of hand by now. I did feel that those few callers who did ask questions sounded intimadated and less than willing to counter what Hermonious was saying. Only one caller had a semi scientific question (concerning the head/spinal column position of the creature) and unfortunately that one question was asked to the effect as "Is there something wrong with your head Bob?"

So did in fact Bob Hermonious last night put an end to the validity of the Patterson/Gimlin film? There are those elsewhere saying that yes he did. Was the silence from the Bigfoot community the silence of knowing that the game was up?

Really? Who? Seriously, I have no idea.

I don't know if this link will directly take anyone there but the very long Patterson/Gimlin thread there was pretty certain that Hermonious had put an end to the whole thing from the point of a man in a suit as well as Gimlin's credability.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42523&page=167

I couldn't ge tthrough

Oh good, the blind leading the blind. I was afraid someone who actually knew something about the film was taking good ol' Bob seriously.

We need a good old fashioned debate on the PGF. Two teams of 4-5 each. We'd dismantle the other side.

I'm sure the debate would be lively but for what ever reason the non skeptic community didn't put up much of a fight last night. That in and of itself is a topic worth of debate.

I guess as someone who feels as though he has a thorough understanding of the event, Bob H's crap is beneath response. Not sure how much debate that needs...

I honestly can't believe that there is any type of media that will allow Bob H. to still come on and .


No pun intended.

Its hard for me to qualify Bob Hermonious claims. But the best way to dismiss a questionable element or character is to question and counter question what that character or element may be postulating. THis is something the non skeptical community didn't do last night in spite of having the wealth of counter information that gets frequent open discussion within the non skeptic community. So I'm left with the feeling that Bob Hermonious held court last night and at least for now his the last word concerning PGF and had I tuned into the show last nught without my recent exploratons into the Sasquatch question I would have come away thinking that PGF maybe should be renamed PGHF.

Oh, well if they said it aint so - then it must not be...

There is only one or two people left in this world who really know what happened that day - and one of them is not BH. If BH had something credible to add to this situation I might listen to him - but he just brings up many questions in my mind, and none of those questions have anything to do with Bob Gimlin or Mr. Patterson.

Some people will say they seen a bigfoot for attention - others will admit to being involved in things they never were, for attention (including crimes). BH lost his credibility a long time ago. Im surprised anyone listens to him at all.

As much as hate to give it the time of day, I suppose I should try to hear it.

2 questions:
1. It looks like it's being rebroadcast again tonight- is that correct?
2. It doesn't yet seem to be archived but if anyone could provide a link to somewhere to hear it I'd rather do it at my leisure than remember to try to tune in tonight which I'm not even sure will work for me.

Apeman

hey everyone crowlogic yes last night xzone bigfoot segment was very ... interesting indeedy.. rob m did a great interview with bob h i even called with 2 questions. im sure the show is archived. xzone is a great show.

Hello, Crow Logic. First of all, not everybody knew about the show last night except a select few. Second of all, I cannot speak for the other individuals who called into the show, but I for one was not "intimidated" by anyone (I was the first caller). I got to ask the questions I wanted to ask, and I did it respectfully, regardless of how I may feel about Heironimus. What did you want us to do, lose our cool and start cussing him out and calling him a liar like that Charlie guy did? That is not very professional or respectful, and I respect Mr. McConnell and would never disrespect him on his own show, just as he would never disrespect me on the show I co-host if he were my guest. Basically, if you go into someone's home, you do not disrespect them, and I felt like being on Rob's show is like being in his living room and I was not going to disrespect him. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about gleaning information from someone, and I feel that Bill Green, Sean Forker and myself did it in the right way. Have any of you ever heard the saying "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar?" I feel that we got all the information necessary from Heironimus we wanted to, without being rude and disrespectful. Now, if any of you would like to start your own radio program and call Heironimus a liar all day long (and I am not saying I believe Heironimus), feel free, but when you go on the show of someone who thinks that film is a hoax to begin with and does not hide that, you need to be respectful and professional. Rob has the right to his opinions, and just because he believes Heironimus was the guy in the suit in that film does not mean he is saying there is no Sasquatch. Let's just all keep these things in mind.

hey henry great return reply to crowlogic above reply regarding this new bob h. xzone interview i definetly agree with you totaly indeed. i hope everyone here does as well. thanks again bill green

Of course its never in good form to lace into a moderator or guest and that's not even a suggestion. I didn't contribute with a question (and I'm sorry now I didn't) because I feel that there are reaseachers and forum members here that have done more analysis to the Sasquatch question than I have and I did firmly expect many more of those researchers, both from this forum and othere places to make use of the opportunity. Of course the Bob H story is somewhat old hat by now and as I understand it it was timely several years ago. But its new to me and I'm sure to others as well. Therefore discussion and debate that may seem tired to some is not tired to others.

As for respectful I'm sorry to say that this forum and the proponents of the Patterson Gimlin film are the subject of much un due disrespect and ridicule within certain other factions. But I can remember a time when I lived on Long Island attending a star show and UFO debate where the UFO proponents (Long Island UFO Committee or something) simply fell apart when faced with thier opponents which consisted of some NASA and Air Force types. In spite of the many valid and intelligent questions that they could have asked they ended up nearly appologizing for their position.

I'm not sure that PGF is real. It is unique for certain but in cases like PGF truth, be it negative or positive, sometimes can only be derived through the untidy unruly knock down drag out brawl that either takes place on the debate floor or takes place internally within the viewer.

But maybe you can post the questions you asked BoB H and his answer and where his answer fits with your position on this.

It's spelled "Heironimus." (Or you can use Rob McConnell's alternative spelling, "Heironeous"--if you're in a teasing mood. RM "misspoke" that pronunciation, supposedly. (I think the angel on his right shoulder got a word in edgewise.))

According to BH's timeline in the Biscardi interview, which utilized a start-date of Sunday, Oct. 1, the film was shot on Thursday, Oct. 5 (presumably allowing time for it to be developed and reviewed for flaws before going public). A filming date of Oct. 5 matches up nicely with the claim in Long's book, p. 350, that P&G faked the tracks a week or two before their announcement on Oct. 20 (15 days later). He's never claimed that P&G immediately went public with it.

However, he's recently (in the Biscardi interview and this 2nd Xzone one) started claiming that P&G told him that they planned to go to town and announce the filming immediately. (This contradicts his statement in Long's book that he didn't know why they gave him the suit, but guessed that it might have been because they planned to go public. And it directly contradicts what he said Patterson told him when he left for Eureka (p. 350):

BH has, I believe, revised his story to meet the objection I raised in my Amazon review, that there'd have been no rationale to give him the suit to transport unless an announcement was imminent. If P&G planned to go home immediately to review the rushes, they would have carried the suit themselves.

Two other awkward patches in BH's story are:

1. It's unlikely that Patterson would have planned to announce the film immediately, as BH now claims, if it had been a hoax. It's more likely he'd have reviewed it for convincingness first, and got it developed in a leisurely fashion, without a suspiciously short timeline and a suspiciously anonymous developer. There was no need for such a short timeline if it had been a hoax. His impetuosity is, to me, a sign of a person who made a genuine find and wasn't concerned with how it would "look" to a suspicious world to have a moonlighting camera-shop employee develop it behind his employer's back.

2. It's hard to think of a reason why Patterson would have immediately abandoned his plan to make an announcement and instead come right home. And it's odd that BH never asked Gimlin, who he encountered fairly often in the years since the filming, "Why the change of plan?" And yet that question would have often bothered him--if his story had been true.

Crow, I asked Heironimus about the place he allegedly met Patterson and Gimlin, which he said in Greg Long's book and also on the Jeff Rense show on March 1st, 2004 that he met them at Willow Creek, but recently, on December 7th, 2006, on the XZone, and on Bigfoot Live with Tom Biscardi March 14th, 2007, he said he met them at Weitchpec. When I asked him about this, he explained that it had been 40 years and he could not remember exact details correctly, but he conceded that it was Weitchpec he met them in. Also, I asked him and Rob if they were aware that, according to John Freitas (MasterBlaster right here on BFF) when I interviewed him the other night, he told me that Gimlin had taken a polygraph test in the late-60's-early-70's and passed it. Neither Rob or Bob H. were aware of that (Gimlin had never told Heironimus that). Later, Sean Forker called in and asked Heironimus what kind of suit he wore and also how many pieces it was in. Heironimus replied that it was the Philip Morris suit he wore, and Sean asked him if that was in six pieces, as Morris had said in Greg Long's book. Heironimus replied it was in three pieces, which was a contradiction of Morris' testimony. Basically, those were the questions asked to Heironimus, and the answers. My position on the film is I am 95% convinced it is of a real Sasquatch, mainly because Heironimus has told many contradictory stories, which may be because of one of three things-faltering memory of an event in which he may have been filmed in Yakima by Patterson as part of a reenactment wearing a suit; he is so deluded that he remembers wearing a suit to scare people in the community, and mixes it with going down to California to be part of the filming; or he is lying. Those are the three choices we have, unless you are inclined to believe him.

I'm 95% convinced that it is not a Phillip Morris gorillia suite or any other outsourced manufactured attire. In certain frames the head profile is very gorillia like but the face itself is unique and if I haden't seen the film where the head and face go through a full range of view I would say that the face dosen't belong to the profile. Yet it clearly does and who then created that face? Not Phillip Morris he made gorillias. As for PGF being a real Sasquatch I'll go as far as to say it's not a fake gorillia suite in the conventional gorillia suit sense (whatever that conventional sense may be). I've yet to acquire a copy of LMS so I haven't had the opportunity of really scrutinizing many of the things I want to in the digital format. But as I suspected many of the bases that I felt wern't covered last night have in fact been covered and covered well already. Thanks!

Are you sure Freitas hasn't made a mistake? Patterson was the one who, it has recently become known, took a lie detector test then. But Gimlin is, I've heard, notable for declining to do so. For instance, in her 1978 book, Sasquatch Apparitions, pp. 84-85, Barbara Wasson urged, in guarded words, that Gimlin take such a test. She was a close acquaintance of his and drove back with him from Vancouver to Yakima after the 1978 conference, talking Bigfoot all the while, and sleeping overnight on his couch. She'd have known if he took such a test.

Roger, apparently, Gimlin told Freitas this himself when he interviewed him. I do not see why Gimlin would leave that detail out when talking to Wasson if he took one in the late-60's-early-70's. Maybe it slipped his mind, who knows? I will e-mail John and ask him for confirmation of this and possibly if he can get it, a copy of Gimlin's polygraph results. (Heironimus volunteered to send me his polygraph results, once Rob McConnell gives him my physical address). If I can get to a scanner, I will scan those results and send it here.

That's not going to work. The record of a lie-detector exam is about thirty feet long, for a typical session, full of handwritten notes. (In modern times, it's accompanied by a videotape of the session. I forgot to ask original-examiner McCormick if he employed this--I suspect not.) There's no way to easily copy it on a scanner or copier. It would be completely incomprehensible to a layman like you.

I suspect what BH plans to send you is a one- or two-page list of the questions asked and the examiner's opinion, not the tracings of the machine. The latter is what a different examiner needs to see if there's evidence in it of an attempt to beat the machine, or of questionable interpretation of a result by the previous examiner.

An inexpensive book on the subject of beating the lie detector, Deception Detection: Winning the Polygraph Game, by Charles Clifton, was published in 1991 by Paladin Press, which, I believe, advertised in Soldier of Fortune magazine. So the methods would have been available to BH, if he took the exam after that date. (Say, when DID he take the test? It's a little odd that the date isn't mentioned in Long's book.)

But I don't think it's likely that BH employed any such methods, although it's possible. It's more likely that, because:

• The examination was private (BH could suppress unfavorable results),
• The questions were probably known in advance, although not the exact wording perhaps,
• The questioner might have been more “friendly” than not. (Based on what Dave Murphy’s told me, I suspect Bob Heironimus was friendly with the chief of police, who might have asked his subordinate, Sgt. Jim McCormick, to do the exam using words like these: “Hey Jim, would you run my good buddy Bob here through your machine?” This might have had an impact on the way borderline results were interpreted.)
• The questioner was not knowledgeable enough about events around the PGF to ask any probing questions, and
• There had been no preliminary investigation that would have provided potentially embarrassing material to confront BH with (unlike a typical criminal-case lie-detector exam),

BH was able to sail through the test by simply keeping calm (by reminding himself of the above) and "staying on-message." (And of course we don't know if he had ever had practice sessions with another examiner somewhere.)

Which could be another reason why some people didn't bother to tune to the program.

hey henry & everyone good morning wow keep those nuteral opinions comeing wow this thread is getting heated etc now im getting lmao excited now... bill

Heated? OK.

Shouldn't that horse be red in colour?

Update: I talked to John Freitas, and he said he may have mixed up Patterson passing a polygraph with Gimlin, and he is going to follow up on this with Bob. Stay tuned for further updates.

hey henry yes thanks for interesting above new interesting update here . thanks bill

The XZone archive for August is finally active, and the BH interview can be downloaded:
http://www.xzone-radio.com/august2007.htm

This thread should be moved to the "Making of Bigfoot" sub-sub-forum, where all other material on Heironimus is located, including his appearances on other broadcast interviews.

I agree.

hey everyone i listened to xzone last night bob h & kal kort pretty much said the same ole stuff. it was a interesting... show. thanks bill

Hello Henry (Bf2004): Have you heard anything more from Freitas on the Gimlin-LDT issue? I'd like closure on this.

I have not heard anything about that yet, Roger, but if I do, you will be the first to know. Thanks for the inquiry.

hey everyone im sure the xzone will have more sasquatch segments in near future i guess we all do is be very.... patient thanks bill

LOL

Indeed.

It should certainly be a red herring... err, I mean red horse.

There was this amusing bit:

BH—“Every time it’s played somebody gets paid. Except me.”

And there was this, which undermines the argument of some bhelievers that the reason BH’s walk doesn’t resemble Patty’s is that he’s aged or been injured or "busted up" to the point where his walk has changed:

BH—"I still have, I think, the old walk. I could do it again, yes."

At one time I totally dismissed Bob Heironimus's testimony. I did feel that details were being overanalyzed like if he turned right or left off of a road, etc. but a lot of the timelines and stuff didn't correspond, same with the suitmaker and who Bob H. claimed made it and what it was made out of. One thing always bugged me though...

2 years later it is finally made public that Bob Gimlin acknowledged Bob H's horse was there at the filmsite. This was after it was asked of one of the most prominent researchers in the field, who responded it wasn't important. It is important, and the fact it was answered at that time is also important.

I will be on the XZone this late-Thursday night/early-Friday morning at 1:00 A.M. EST/12:00 Central with Kal Korff. The website is http://www.xzoneradio.com Hope everyone tunes in, and also calls in (the number is 1-877-528-8255). But, if you do, please do so in a professional manner, and not confrontational or rude.

I don't think he ever denied it. It's just that he doesn't issue statements or give interviews, and therefore few Bigfooters called him up to ask questions. What I remember reading in the aftermath of the book's publication was a statement from one of the big-name footers, I think John Green, who had talked to Gimlin, that the return of BH's horse (and possibly the borrowing of it--I don't remember) had happened in quite a different manner than what BH had described. (No detail was given. But Green could be asked if Gimlin told him then that Chico had been borrowed from BH.) I bet there's a post in a thread here that contains this statement of Green's. This would implicitly acknowledge that Chico was employed.

So I don't find it suspicious that it's "news" that Chico was at Bluff Creek. It was just news to Chris Murphy, when he finally learned it from Gimlin, and to most of the rest of us, though not to me. (Not in December 2006, I mean, when Murphy questioned Gimlin. Previously, in my “A Horse of a Different Color” post, I’d made erroneous statements about the horses; but Chris set me straight, before December, in answer to my questions.)

Gimlin should have issued a more comprehensive statement at the start. But what he may be doing, by lying low, is following a lawyer's advice and trying to entice a deep-pockets defendant like Fox to broadcast and endorse BH's claims. (Alternatively, BH has "got something" on Gimlin (unrelated to the PGF) and Gimlin doesn't want to inflame him.)

Long interviewed Gimlin for 45 minutes (p. 423) and, although "Gimlin denied over and over again every aspect of Heironimus's story," it's unlikely he denied that BH's horse Chico was there. Chico (seen on p. 39 of Long's book) has a distinctive broad blaze and white foreleg-socks, and is unusually tall--16 hands. She could be identified from the film. If Gimlin had denied that Chico was present, Long could really have nailed him. Since Long didn't, I infer that Gimlin didn't deny that.

Apparently this horse-borrowing was common. Gimlin boarded people's horses for them. Heironimus has said several times that he and Gimlin used to get on horses and go up in the mountains. Patterson was astride Chico in the Feb. 1968 Argosy cover photo, a photo that according to Pat Patterson was shot months before the PGF. (Probably during filming of his "Bigfoot Documentary" near the South fork of the Ahtanum.) So it wouldn't have been a big deal to have borrowed that horse.

(Say, I wonder if Patterson ever paid BH his horse-rental fee? If not, maybe that's what BH is sore about. Maybe that's what Gimlin was trying to make good when, according to BH, he pressed $100 into BH's pocket in the eighties.)

And there was a non-suspicious reason for borrowing Chico: BH has called Chico "a good horse in the mountains" (for what reason I don't know) and that she "didn't know how to buck," a definite plus when tracking Bigfoots. Gimlin was astride Chico during the encounter, and sure enough he was able to keep control of her and even force her to cross the creek after Patty. The other two horses took fright and ran off.

The post stated that Gimlin didn't remember, and that it wasn't important whether or not Bob H's horse was there. It is important, it corroborates Bob H's story, and it shouldn't have been dismissed with a "Move along folks, nothing to see here" attitude.

That puts doubt in my mind, both in the credibility of the investigator and the witness of the filming. It also puts weight in Bob H's story.

What post? Please give a link or a clue.

Sure it's important if Gimlin actually said he didn't remember whether Bob's horse was there. It's more likely, though, that he wasn't asked, or that the news wasn't passed on to the poster, who may have merely assumed that Gimlin said he didn't remember Chico being there. Gimlin may have used a more general expression containing "don't remember," such as, when asked about BH's claims regarding the horse, "That's not the way I remember it."

That wouldn't have denied remembering the borrowing & returning of Chico, only the manner in which it was done, or its timing. (For instance, Chico may have been boarded at Gimlin's place, and may have been returned a week or two later, or picked up by BH from Gimlin's.) The poster, reading that sentence, may have mis-interpreted it as saying that Gimlin didn't remember borrowing Chico at all.

Surely Long would have asked, though, in his 45-minute interrogation (p. 423), and nailed Gimlin for it if he'd denied or “forgotten” that Chico was there, as I pointed out.

This was news:

Compare that to the following:

BH's statement means that the suit was loose-fitting even over his clothing.


Not if it was the ordinary thing for wearers of his suit to keep their clothes on, as I'm sure was the case.

Oops--The quote above was from the interview of August 6, not August 23. However, there is one interesting statement BH made on the 23rd that I'd take issue with:


But he won't look anyone look at his test-scroll. (Or whatever the roll of paper that the polygraph produces is called.) That's odd, isn't it? It's normal, when a person claims to have passed a lie detector test, for him to be asked to allow the record of the test to be examined by other lie detector experts. And it's therefore suspicious when he won't.

This is particularly the case:

1. When the test was administered under the testee's own auspices, which means (to those knowledgeable in the polygraph business), that the result carries less weight than an independently administered test.

(Note--Kal Korff has repeatedly and dramatically claimed, on XZone, that the test was administered by "the chief of police," which it wasn't. Jim McCormick, the examiner, was a sergeant, as I've pointed out here, and posted as a comment on Korff's XZone blog-thread. (it was deleted within ten days, probably by Xzone.)

Korff has usually added, "You don't lie to the chief of police," own mis-implying the test was administered under some sort of official auspices. Rather, it was more likely administered under informal and even, perhaps, friendly auspices. Dave Murphy has told me that BH was friendly with members of the police department--and this may have included the chief (I don't know). If the chief or some other PD member had asked McCormick to administer a test to a friend as a personal favor, that would surely count as a friendly set of circumstances, rather than the intimidating one that Kal implied.)

2. When the testee has repeatedly been presented (by Kal and Long) as someone who "has nothing to hide."

3. When the second-opinion examiner was recommended by the original examiner. (He was, in addition, the only one recommended.) IOW, he's not some ax-grinding hired-gun cherry-picked to discredit the original results.)

4. When the testee agrees to allow his results to be examined and to inform his attorney (Woodard) to release them for that purpose (as BH promised me and my second-opinion examiner), but the attorney nevertheless fails to return the second examiner's calls. (This has the smell of a runaround--a situation where each party can plausibly deny covering anything up, blaming the failure to perform as promised on some sort of mixup between the two of them about what they were supposed to do.)

5. When the testee makes a show of sharing his test results, as BH did with Henry May on August 6, while actually not sharing the test-scroll, but only some sort of brief "He-Passed" certificate from the examiner. It's an equivocation to refer to that as a "test result." It dodges the issue while deceiving (most of) the audience.

Say, I wonder if Woodard destroyed the test-scroll somewhere along the line.

PS: I think there's less than a 5% chance that the second examiner's opinion won't agree with the first's. But this dodginess would still be a mark against BH (or maybe just Woodard), even if that's the case.

Out of respect for privacy I sent you the link.

You and I both know this isn't the first time information that would cast doubt on the films authenticity has been withheld from the public.

That is an interesting thought.

Ok, Roger, to clear up whether or not Bob Gimlin took a polygraph, he told me by phone last night that he did not, and that John Freitas had mixed him with Roger Patterson. He also told me he does not do interviews anymore out of respect for his wife Judy, who took a good bit of ridicule over the years for Bob's involvement with the film. Apparently, according to Kal Korff (who reported this last night on the XZone), he was told the alleged suit is buried somewhere near Yakima and no one has gone to dig it up, and was allegedly buried by two friends of Patterson's after he died. Also, there is something going on with Mrs. Gimlin in which she was president of a local bank in Yakima, and that due to her standing in the community, if the film is admitted to be a hoax by Bob G., then it would damage her reputation in the community. Take from that what you will. The archive of that show is available at http://www.xzoneradio.com If anyone wants to listen. Hope this helps, Roger.

hey everyone good evening there is a new segment tonight from 11pm-12am with researcher john horrigan talking about his upcoming mass monster mash conferance in october im definetly calling in to ask a question i hope you all do the same as well. thanks bill please keep in touch ok.

Doesn't it seem unusual, that Bob H, is claimed to not be involved in the filming at Bluff Creek, yet, Bob Gimlin admits that he was riding Bob H's horse at the time they ran into Patty?

I think this is huge.

Also,



Can you please reiterate what information has been withheld?
Other than the original film, I might add...