The Yakima man who made history and legend 37 years ago by walking in Bigfoot's flat feet donned the costume again this week to put the hoax firmly in the halls of hooey. "I kept it quiet for all those years, but it wasn't a secret to most of the people around here," 63-year-old Bob Heironimus said Wednesday at his West Valley home. The tall cowboy walked the lumbering Bigfoot walk for filmmakers and anti-Bigfoot authors Tuesday on private property near Rimrock Lake. The group's goal is to make the film behind the film, that 60-second grainy image made in 1967 by a "chronically unemployed ex-rodeo cowboy" from Yakima named Roger Patterson. Patterson, see, was a prankster who thought he could make a million dollars by distributing the Bigfoot film nationally. Enough audiences saw the image of the hairy primate that it became an object of mythic proportions for some and gargantuan sarcasm for others. Heironimus said Patterson promised him $1,000 from the takings, "but I never saw a dime." The two kind of fell out after that, in part because Patterson became sick with cancer and died in 1972. But as cheated as Heironimus felt, his word was his word. "I promised Roger I would keep it a secret," he said.

He buried Bigfoot back in his mind, got a job at Pepsi and rode horses for fun. Then two years ago a sleuthing Seattle-area author named Greg Long found him and coaxed out the story of the hoax. Long's "The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story" was published in March. The original Bigfoot film was shot next to Bluff Creek in the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. Heironimus said Patterson chose the area because it was near a recent Bigfoot "sighting." Also on the shoot was friend and cowboy Bob Gimlin of Yakima.

View: Full Article | Source: Yakima Herald

First off let me say that I have lived in Yakima all my life, and the idea of people around here knowing this was a hoax is rediculous. One of my first problems is why wait so long to come forward, sure he says "he made a promise and my word is my word", so am I to take it that his word no longer is his word since he now breaks his promise, and if that is the case why believe him now.Secondly, where is the original costume, I find it hard to believe that someone would just ditch a suit of such historic importance(or unimportance). Thirdly, if indeed this was a hoax and the makers of this movie are trying to make an actual documentary, shouldn't then they do every thing that they can to emulate the conditions. This would include using an actual gorilla suit made in 1967, NOT a Bigfoot suit made special for the film. Of course the remade footage is going to look like the original footage, but if you're cheating to get the results you want then they are invalid. And as for the "costume" being female, why would patterson do that, why would he{not to mention how}make breasts for a gorilla suit, an anatomical feature not even readily visible by simply watching the footage,and that wasn't even noticed by researchers until long after Pattersons death. In the end I would say all this proves is that Hieronimous is the one looking for a quick buck, and at the expense of a long dead friend , he should be ashamed, and as for the "Halls of Hooey", I don't think so.

Wow, u live where the bigfoot started! cool flukeman

And i quote:

Will all this truth-telling spell the end of Bigfoot?
Heironimus, the man who would be the beast, said: "It should. Truth is truth."


Truth IS Truth afterall.

i've never believed in bigfoot anyway

Cr*p Cr*p Cr*p

All Cr*P

I'd like them to prove that suit is the original an not something made last week. If it is made for the documentary I want them to bring forth the original costume before telling the world all this cr*p

Second, I find it hard he held this story for all these years working for Pepsi when in reality anyone with intelligence would have sold their story to the papers at the height of the issue, or sued Paterson.

Furthermore, that it was a reporter, with the promise of money and 15 mins of fame who convinced to 'tell the truth' makes me even more sceptical!

Three, the bias of the source is sooooo obvious we can't trust anything it says. I quote: "Will all this truth-telling spell the end of Bigfoot? " ... er ... Truth telling? You have one mans word against two others who died saying it was real, how does that automatically make your source right when it hasn't even been confirmed this man was even there, against the testimonies of two were certainly were!


Fourth, QUIT WITH THE END OF BIGFOOT RUBBISH! Bigfoot has been reported by both Native Americans and European Explorers for hundreds of years, the Paterson film was NOT, I REPEAT NOT, the beginning of Bigfoot, it was just what put it in the public eye!

Should the Paterson film ever be PROVED false (and until they pull out a costume labelled 'Made in 1967' and has the wear, tare and resemblance to prove it, then they have provided NO PROOF) then it does NOT PROVE Bigfoot does not exist.


This is just yet another bunch of film makers saying 'We've proved the Paterson film to be fake' to get their show more ratings, when, just like X-Creatures a few years back, they've got nothing but cr*p.

Speaking of X-Creatures, who also said they had remade without flaw the Patterson film to get ratings, does anyone remember the joke which was actually shown to those who watched rather than just ran off saying 'knew it was fake . This joke;




Yep, great look-a-like dudes, better luck next episode.

I think that the word used in situations like this is BULLSHIT.

Thank you Talon, for reiterating my points, if not a little more eloquently. It pains me to think that the citizens of my city are so stupid , close-minded and easily swayed.

Without having the suit, his story is just that, a story. It is easy to say things like this after the people involved are dead, who is going to be able to say anything different.

I don't know if the footage is real or not; I am not qualified to say so either way, but for some guy top come along and say that he was the bigfoot after all of this time just doesn't make much sense, and with no proof to offer it doesn't mean much anyway...

The mystery is still a mystery.