Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[GT/CS]

Why such hatred towards the players in a minor hoax?

[River]

Originally Posted by wheunis

The only better I can give you is the direct quote.

“I was never paid a dime for that, no sir.”
“Sure I want to make some money. I feel that after 36 years I should get some of it.”

You have not pointed out any evidence that Bob Heironimus could not have been the MIAS actor. All you've done is show your bias and intent. Many of us posting here in these threads think that Heironimus is most likely the MIAS actor in the PGF film. I'm quite sure you are aware of the reasons for those opinions. I've also been of the opinion it could've just as easily been Gimlin or Patterson for that matter. With the information that is out there currently it would seem that Heironimus is the most likely candidate.

All I see is an opinion apparently based on some statements that Heironimus made in regards to never getting paid what he was promised (allegedly) and in a way expressing some resent for those that did profit greatly from the hoax. Sounds a little like sour grapes. Perhaps even like he was upset for not getting what he was promised out of the deal. Who knows right? Only a few people, and they aren't about to talk.

I don't believe the statements you've quoted coming from Heironimus makes him disohonest any more than anyone participating in a hoax would be. If he was in the suit, I'm sure he was being dishonest to some people about that as it was a hoax. Its a gas to fool people and all. However, to take that and make it into hes making up the whole story and so are the people that corroborate his claims... well... that seems pretty unlikely to me. In fact, the most likely scenario goes down just like Heironimus describes in his claims about being in the suit.

Can you be 100% sure he wasnt in the suit? Just the same, can you be 100% sure (insert name of your choice here) was? The point I'm trying to get to is -- you're looking for the suit to come from a guy that doesnt claim to have it. You're saying he's dishonest because he wanted to get paid? Or because he commited a hoax? I'd like to see you point to something that excludes him from being the MIAS actor. If not, then you must consider him as a possibility considering his claims and others that have corroborated it.

Just because someone may or may not be a "liar" does not mean they may or may not have been involved in said hoax. Refer to anything bigfoot related.

[Volsquatch]

Originally Posted by River

Again, what specific testimony or evidence leads you to this conclusion? All I see in your post is opinion based on?

As with most of the "Believers"(even those who are most likely socking here and having a bit of fun), I see opinions based solely upon the Will to Believe.



"It is wrong, everywhere and for every one, to believe anything on insufficient evidence"

- W.K. Clifford

From the link:

Quote:

The Ethics of Belief

Clifford begins this essay with two provocative examples of persons’ beliefs. In the first, a ship owner lets one of his fleet sail even though it is not seaworthy. Instead of doing whatever he can to assure that the ship can make the voyage, he convinces himself that the vessel can make it. The ship sinks, many people aboard die, and the owner collects the insurance payment. In the second, a group of people levies untrue (and uninvestigated) charges against others, though they believe them to be true. Clifford notes that these people might be guilty of acting wrongly; the ship owner ought not to have allowed his boat to sail, and the accusers ought not to have made false accusations. However, Clifford argues that the actors are also culpable for believing as they did. Thus, the ship owner did something wrong because he believed that his ship was seaworthy where that belief was unjustified. Similarly, the accusers were morally wrong in believing their charges because the evidence before them was insufficient for them to have the right to believe their accusations.

Clifford notes that in his two examples, the unjustified beliefs affected many people (the wrongly accused and the drowned passengers), and that it is therefore clear that those beliefs were culpably wrong. However, he argues that beliefs based upon insufficient evidence are wrong regardless of how trivial they seem. Beliefs shape our actions, and we ought not act on the basis of unjustified beliefs (as Clifford’s first two examples illustrate). But belief in unquestioned claims (even seemingly insignificant ones) trivializes the faculty of belief. If we trivialize the importance of justifying beliefs, we are more likely to end up acting on the basis of unfounded beliefs at some point. Thus, we ought never unquestioningly believe things. For similar reasons, the duty to question and justify beliefs extends to all people, no matter their place in society; since any person is capable of promulgating or stifling poorly supported propositions, failure to question beliefs may lead to others’ actions based upon those unjustified beliefs.

Clifford is sensitive to the difficulty of the duty to doubt beliefs, both because it takes substantial effort and because it undermines the comfort that some beliefs themselves bring. However, he argues that the sense of security and power that our beliefs bring is "highest and best" when the belief "has been fairly earned by investigation.” Further, if belief is not so-based, then it is "stolen," and runs contrary to our duties to promulgate well-justified belief among other people.

The ship was the pride of the Bigfooters side
coming back from some creek in California.
As the big freighters go, it was bigger than most
with a crew and good hoaxer well seasoned,
concluding some terms with a couple of Yakima firms
when they left fully loaded for the cinema.
And later that night when the ship's bell rang,
could it be the North Wind they'd been feelin'?

The folds in the fur made a tattle-tale sound
as the film rolled over the projector.
And ev'ry man knew, as the captain did too
'twas the witch of October come stealin'.
The dawn came late and the breakfast had to wait
when the Gales of October came slashin'.
When afternoon came it was freezin' rain
in the face of a hurricane North Wind.

When conference time came the old Crook came on deck sayin'.
"Fellas, it's too rough t'feed ya."
At seven P.M. the suit came in; he said,
"Fellas, it's bin good t'know ya!"
The captain wired in he had water comin' in
and the good ship and crew was in peril.
And later that night when 'is lights went outta sight
came the wreck of the Patterson Gimlin.

- Parody of the "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by wheunis

I have nothing to hide.

I'm the easter bunny.

It's kind of an interesting argument, although you are deceptive about not stating it anywhere in full. All of three lines:

I accept the premise that Bob Heironimus wore the suit
so he is dishonest
therefore I reject the premise that Bob Heironimus wore the suit.

Actually, you just ruled out every criminal confession ever given. But the important thing about this argument is that actually you DO take the default position that Bob Heironimus wore the suit, but cannot even once bring yourself to say it, even for the purposes of argument, because you loathe it so much.

Look how you take his wearing of the suit as such a horrific crime. Patterson committed a continuous series of frauds, bad debt, bad faith dealing - whole binders full of material on his scamming. And it's "oh yeah, he's bad like Bob Heironimus".

But this is unforgiveable to you: Bob Heironimus wore the suit. And it is easy to see why for the 'footer. Because discrediting Bob Heironimus leaves open the door for it being bigfoot after all. What better credentials to pose under than being a skeptic who thinks Bob Gimlin is behind the PGF. Well - actually, you really blew it there. But you're blowing it all over the place.

There's a new idea - posing as a skeptic.

[BravesFan]

So what? I've hoaxed footprints in the woods before, played numerous practical jokes, done any number of illegal things when I was a kid, yet my word is good. I'm not known to lie when dealing with serious real world stuff.

Saying that because someone was involved with a hoax mean they lie so you can't trust them when they say the were involved in a hoax is the silliest thing I have heard in a while.

ETA: meant to quote wheunis but I forgot...sorry



Hating people who did a hoax is silly. It's not like they hoaxed you that your long lost father had been located and they bilked you out of $50,ooo or anything. they made a fun bigfoot movie... hardly life changing or important or traumatic

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by River

You have not pointed out any evidence that Bob Heironimus could not have been the MIAS actor. All you've done is show your bias and intent. Many of us posting here in these threads think that Heironimus is most likely the MIAS actor in the PGF film. I'm quite sure you are aware of the reasons for those opinions. I've also been of the opinion it could've just as easily been Gimlin or Patterson for that matter. With the information that is out there currently it would seem that Heironimus is the most likely candidate.

All I see is an opinion apparently based on some statements that Heironimus made in regards to never getting paid what he was promised (allegedly) and in a way expressing some resent for those that did profit greatly from the hoax. Sounds a little like sour grapes. Perhaps even like he was upset for not getting what he was promised out of the deal. Who knows right? Only a few people, and they aren't about to talk.

I don't believe the statements you've quoted coming from Heironimus makes him disohonest any more than anyone participating in a hoax would be. If he was in the suit, I'm sure he was being dishonest to some people about that as it was a hoax. Its a gas to fool people and all. However, to take that and make it into hes making up the whole story and so are the people that corroborate his claims... well... that seems pretty unlikely to me. In fact, the most likely scenario goes down just like Heironimus describes in his claims about being in the suit.

Can you be 100% sure he wasnt in the suit? Just the same, can you be 100% sure (insert name of your choice here) was? The point I'm trying to get to is -- you're looking for the suit to come from a guy that doesnt claim to have it. You're saying he's dishonest because he wanted to get paid? Or because he commited a hoax? I'd like to see you point to something that excludes him from being the MIAS actor. If not, then you must consider him as a possibility considering his claims and others that have corroborated it.

Just because someone may or may not be a "liar" does not mean they may or may not have been involved in said hoax. Refer to anything bigfoot related.

I thank you for a level response.
I agree with you, I do not have evidence disproving The Invisible Pink Unicorn Bob H's claims.
In the same thought, can anybody else claim the same for the opposite?

The only thing we do have, is the confession of a man.
I chose not to believe the man and his confession, based on the paradox presented earlier.

Most BF-skeptics around the world jumped the case as proof positive to their long-held belief of PGF as a hoax/fake.
Yes, I too believe the PGF is a hoax/fake.

What I was not prepared to do, however, was jump the words of a clearly dishonest man, as proof positive in favor of my "PGF=fake" claim.

If I may then propose something I have been thinking about for a very long time.
THIS is the sort of evidence (I believe) we SHOULD be seeking, instead of hanging our coats on a dishonest man's claims.

If you are interested in assisting in this, please let me know. I do not have ALL the necessary expertise and/or knowledge to prove this on my own.
Spoilertagged for those that simply do not care.

Busting PGF:

<Removed content on the insistence of another user.>
<Please ignore request for assistance.>

[BravesFan]

You seem to have a bigger vendetta against BH than I have against my cheating ex girlfriend... (and believe me that's saying something).

Not to mention you keep saying that we have just lapped up his story and declared it true.

We haven't.

The evidence ,as of now this moment, points to BH as the man in the suit for the sole reason as he is the only one to come forward. if , in the future, someone else comes forward and presents an even better profile as the potential suit wearer, we will not be saying" Nu uh, it's BH we already know this, you are lying" we will look at the evidence and determine if he truly does present a better option. If he does, BH will cease to be the prime suspect in the Patty fiasco.


If you have a crime, you gather suspects, you narrow them down to a prime suspect, this doesn't mean they are guilty, it means they are the main focus as they fit the bill. If someone confesses and you can't eliminate them they become the prime suspect. (even without enough evidence to take to court)

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by wheunis

Somewhat of an appeal:

Does anyone have a link to a high quality version of this?
http://youtu.be/nc--kJ1EpZM

Dunno if I just noticed something due to bad quality.

There is something about this that sits ill with me.
Does Bob H and/or Gimlim actually ever respond to questions?

Just wondering if Gimlin would be able to lay claim to the timelapse inbetween the section of Bob riding off, and the sighting...
As it turns out, the horses might be more important than originally thought.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by wheunis

I present it again, just for clarity.

Why yes - hide it in order to "show" it, in a much more muddled form than has already been proven is a fallacy you have constructed.

Quote:

THIS is the sort of evidence (I believe) we SHOULD be seeking, instead of hanging our coats on a dishonest man's claims.

If you are interested in assisting in this, please let me know. I do not have ALL the necessary expertise and/or knowledge to prove this on my own.

Busting PGF:

"Rude" hardly describes the level of insulting you have come on here with, and then you think people should "help" with your more "important" work? Hey, wait while I call up the President and get some people on this.

You'll be needing a press conference so I'll schedule that too.

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Why yes - hide it in order to "show" it, in a much more muddled form than has already been proven is a fallacy you have constructed.



"Rude" hardly describes the level of insulting you have come on here with, and then you think people should "help" with your more "important" work? Hey, wait while I call up the President and get some people on this.

You'll be needing a press conference so I'll schedule that too.

Fine, I removed it, as per your complaint.

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by wheunis

Fine, I removed it, as per your complaint.

Excellent, thanks. Maximum non-cooperation. Since I didn't ask for that. All kinds of manipulative ways to play that too. Play the victim. Play the servant role. Baiting. Sheesh - textbook manipulator.

Welcome to ignore.

[HarryHenderson]

Seems this thread's been sizzlin' all day. And it also seems the biggest sizzler has been chopped into horse meat now, so there's really <I have to> no need for me to beat the dead horse. <ugh>

But speaking of horses, real and serious but now-dead horses...

Originally Posted by AttorneyTom

I agree... It is highly suspect with the horses. No need for them and seemingly a prop...

Au contraire Molfraire. You're shortchanging the 'horses' aspect a little me thinks. There's actually several valid reasons why their using horses makes genuine (if not clever) sense.

Firstly, I know Patterson was many things, most of them nefarious apparently too, but he was also and truly a cowboy. And a real and true cowboy strays but only short distances away (in his daily life) without his/a horse being somewhere nearby. To an outdoors-man cowboy like him, using horses for whatever the reasons was and is a total no-brainer.

Second, and although I'm not a hunter, I know hunting on/with horses is a time honored and to the present day practice, and even popular in certain areas. Not all hunters do it I know, but it is a real and viable manner of hunting. So him out there appearing to be 'hunting' Bigfoot on horseback is not odd or contrived at all.

Third, distance. At a decent walking pace, I'd say a horse can easily cover twice the ground/distance than a man on foot on flat ground can. Against a man with 30 pounds of clothes and equipment on a mountain trail, even more I bet. On horseback you can get 5 miles further down the trail yet expend but 1/500th the energy doing so.

Obviously, if you're trying to pull off the kind of stunt he did, wanting to go as far back into primitive nowhereville as possible makes total sense. In several ways. And using horses to do so NOT because of the reasons mentioned for Patterson are truly (if not ironically) valid, BUT because horses can much more easily, quietly and quickly go way back in to a nice quiet place to produce 'the big hoax' without the prying eyes of humanity. Simple. Essentially, those first two reasons were his cover story, the last one his actual intent.

And I know the 'film site' isn't necessarily Ice Station Zebra, but even duty driven die-hard Bigfooters have had to carefully and deliberately make their way back to the site to see it because it is exactly back-in-there nowhereville. It's so far back in there, one of the few major discrepancies in BH's story is 'where' exactly it happened. His recollection was/is a little vague.

Truly AT, I'm not arguing with you. Just offering some insight you might not have considered.

[mustbeso]

wenunis,
if I have this right, it is your position that Bob H agreed to say he was the guy in the suit and was paid to do so? I have trouble with who would pay him to do that. This is essentially a bribe and I can think of only one person to whom that would adventagous and I'm sure you can too.

[Vortigern99]

I'm beginning to regret coming to Wheunis's defense.

I mean, sure, it's rational to keep any claim at arm's length pending further evidence. But Wheunis is not relying on evidence to form his conclusions about Heironimous. He's relying on opinion and a kind of vague feeling of dislike.

He's also contorting logic to arrive at his "conclusions", namely the bewildering syllogism that Heironimous is "dishonest" because he participated in a hoax (when of course the basis of his argument is that H. did not participate in the hoax ).

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by wheunis

There is something about this that sits ill with me.
Does Bob H and/or Gimlim actually ever respond to questions?
Just wondering if Gimlin would be able to lay claim to the timelapse inbetween the section of Bob riding off, and the sighting...
As it turns out, the horses might be more important than originally thought.

How can you know who Sweaty is yet not know that Bob H will answer any question at any time but Bob G does not answer questions from skeptics.

Correction, Bob G did recently sort of answer a question but it was a totally BS answer.

[Correa Neto]

Lets suppose BH is dishonest.
Being dishonest by no means avoid people from admiting or confessing his/hers bad acts.
A prime motivation is the perception of being left without his/hers cut and/or vengeance for any reason. Check politics and crime history, for example.
So, "BH is dishonest" is not a good reason to discard him as a possible man-in-the-suit.

[parnassus]

since when does asking for money rightly owed and being honked off, translate to being dishonest? hey, you kids get off my lawn!!!!

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

I'm beginning to regret coming to Wheunis's defense.

I mean, sure, it's rational to keep any claim at arm's length pending further evidence. But Wheunis is not relying on evidence to form his conclusions about Heironimous. He's relying on opinion and a kind of vague feeling of dislike.

He's also contorting logic to arrive at his "conclusions", namely the bewildering syllogism that Heironimous is "dishonest" because he participated in a hoax (when of course the basis of his argument is that H. did not participate in the hoax ).

/sigh.
2 Separate assumptions.

Assumption 1: Bob H was involved
If Bob H's story is true - the following points of information can be taken.
A: Bob knowingly and willingly took part in a hoax.
B: His motivation to "come out" is nothing more than greed and/or revenge.

I see - Dishonesty, and greed.


Assumption 2: Bob H was not involved
If Bob H's story is false - the following points of information can be taken.
A: Bob knowingly and willingly lied about being complicit in a hoax.
B: His motivations to do so is greed, with the possibility of notoriety.

I see - Dishonesty, and greed.
Honest people do not perpetrate/partake(in) hoaxes. Dishonest one's do.


So, then, I present you the option.
Bob H is/was {insert numbered choice here}, motivated by {insert alphabet choice here}.

Choices:
1: A man willfully partaking in a hoax
2: A man willfully lying about partaking in a hoax
A: Greed and revenge.
B: Greed and possible notoriety.


Both choices 1 and 2 paint the picture of a dishonest man.
Both choices A and B paint the picture of motive(s) quite clearly. I am sure you all will agree that neither greed, revenge, or notoriety (nor any combination of these) are noble motives.

No matter which scenario you paint, it comes to the same.
Dishonest, greedy action(s) by a honest/dishonest man.

Honesty just does not fit.

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Lets suppose BH is dishonest.
Being dishonest by no means avoid people from admiting or confessing his/hers bad acts.
A prime motivation is the perception of being left without his/hers cut and/or vengeance for any reason. Check politics and crime history, for example.
So, "BH is dishonest" is not a good reason to discard him as a possible man-in-the-suit.

The only thing we can trust a dishonest and greedy man to do, is to be greedy and dishonest.
Taking his verbal claims, backed up only by more verbal claims from more people, without so much as a shred of tangible evidence - should not be, and is not, grounds for a case.

Is it possible for The Invisible Pink Unicorn Bob H to exist be in the suit?
It very well might be, but no evidence is presented towards this claim, and thus the matter is nothing but opinion.

No proof, no fact. No fact, only opinion.
I just prefer my opinion of dishonest and greedy actions, to remain suspicious of the extent of the dishonesty and greed.

ETA: (In direct response to highlighted portion of quote above)
False Confessions


ETA:

Originally Posted by mustbeso

wenunis,
if I have this right, it is your position that Bob H agreed to say he was the guy in the suit and was paid to do so? I have trouble with who would pay him to do that. This is essentially a bribe and I can think of only one person to whom that would adventagous and I'm sure you can too.

Yes, it would be a bribe. I can think of 2 people who could benefit from such, but at this point cannot reasonably make a case on the non-information present. Maybe some day an interview will be forthcoming and their colors will be revealed.

[GT/CS]

So what?

You're all bent out of shape because Bob H finally, after all these years, decides we would like to have been paid for his role in the event. So what?

This site is about presenting evidence to support your claims. With that in mind do you have anything to present that shows Bob H was not the bloke in the suit?

Anything. Anything at all, other than a blinding hatred for the man?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by wheunis

.......
Just wondering if Gimlin would be able to lay claim to the timelapse inbetween the section of Bob riding off, and the sighting...
As it turns out, the horses might be more important than originally thought.

Why don't you contact Gimlin, and ask ?

[Correa Neto]

Sorry Wheunis, but your position stands on very weak bases, even if he is indeed dishonest and greedy as you are postulating.

Again, check politics and crime story to see how many delations and confessions came out of not having received a due cut.

Note what you wrote
"The only thing we can trust a dishonest and greedy man to do, is to be greedy and dishonest."
So, IF he his dishonest and greedy and IF he was indeed the bloke in the suit and IF he has not received his due cut...

Maybe he was not the bloke in the suit, maybe he's lying about it all, but what you are presenting as evidence, your line of reasoning is flawed at its very bottom.

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Maybe he was not the bloke in the suit, maybe he's lying about it all, but what you are presenting as evidence, your line of reasoning is flawed at its very bottom.

As opposed to simply accepting "his word" for it?
I see your requests for evidence, and raise him (Bob H) the same.

Is it so unreasonable for me to question a fraudster's confession?
Is it so wildly outside the realm of skeptic inquiry to not accept someone's word for something?

I got one for you.
Perfectly relevant, wild and proof-less suit-wearers.

It is possible that Bob H was in the suit, based on his claims.
It is possible that Ray Wallace was in the suit, based on his involvement with both Patterson and the BF scene. (*)
It is possible that the Invisible Pink Unicorn herself was in the suit, based on her omnipotent and omnipresent nature.

It is equally likely that all of the above are equally likely, or more-so, unlikely. Based on the (non-)evidence available, no concrete case can be made for/against any valid suspect.

(*) It is completely valid a hypothesis to consider Ray a likely suspect. Patterson apparently cried on his shoulder (cancer or something?), and he felt sorry for him. Told him to go to that spot, and that "something will come".
As an "act to help a friend", he may have donned the suit in the hopes that it would help his fellow footer/friend.
Have we substantially investigated the different lenses and how their perspective outcomes may have placed the height at sufficient margins to be Ray?
Well... have we? I have yet to see it, because everyone seems to have latched onto Bob; because he said so, and fitting to that, the only lens we considered was the one matching Bob.
This by no way means I think Ray did it.
I am merely illustrating how one is as likely/unlikely as the other.

I know exactly what will happen hereafter.Quotes to my claim of "not knowing, nor needing a replacement suspect". Go ahead and take the clearly hypothetical presentation as "backpedaling" and "grabbing at straws". Have at it...

[BravesFan]

yer not very good at this.......

Being a serial killer wouldn't stop the possibility that BH was the prime suspect as Patty. he two have nothing to do with each other.

That's like saying "My girlfriend is a cheater hence she cannot possibly have been a bank robber"

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by BravesFan

yer not very good at this.......

Being a serial killer wouldn't stop the possibility that BH was the prime suspect as Patty. he two have nothing to do with each other.

That's like saying "My girlfriend is a cheater hence she cannot possibly have been a bank robber"

Ad Absurdum: But thanks for trying.
Try harder with related subjects that actually connect to each other.

[BravesFan]

I was pointing out exactly what you have been doing. But your crazed hatred for a guy who may be involved with a bigfoot hoax blinds you to this.

it's silly, if we were in person i would be pointing and laughing

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Sorry Wheunis, but your position stands on very weak bases, even if he is indeed dishonest and greedy as you are postulating.

He hasn't even shown that. I have him on ignore now because it is so obviously a chain-yanker and not pursuing inquiry.

It does not follow that Bob H. agreeing to be a paid participant makes him either greedy or dishonest. What we have to understand is that this poster, more than anyone else, knows that. Forget trying to convince him because he already told us he is a binary computer with one funtion: Jihad on Bob Heironimus in the suit.

That makes no sense to any normal, non-invested person. A normal person easily understands a young man not long out of High School taking an offer for over six grand cash (Today's dollars) to merely wear a suit once. I would do that right now. The deal was to keep his mouth shut to outsiders, which he did for over four decades. Wow.

A normal person is also easily in agreement with Bob Heironimus being the logical person to fill the role given body size, ownership of horses, participating already in the documentary - and being honest. Yes, that's right: honest. You have to throw big cash in front of an honest man, and a young struggling one at that, to dupe him into paying his own gas and borrowing his mom's car to get down to Bluff Creek.

Our poseur knows every bit of that. But he keeps coming back with "he wore the suit! He wore the suit!"

Yeah. We know.

[BravesFan]

That's a good idea ABP... to ignore he goes

[Correa Neto]

Wheunis, note what you wrote:

As opposed to simply accepting "his word" for it?

I don't think too many of us here are doing that. The way I see it, most if not all consider him as the prime suspect or candidate, not just because of "his word", but because of his involvment with P&G and other things. But I suspect you already know this and for whatever reason, you have chosen to distort or ignore our actual position (*).

Consider the following:
Criminals and politicians, they never open their mouths after noting they are not getting their cut?
The boy who cried wolf... There was never a wolf?

(*) This is a standard believer/woo tactic, twisting their oponent's positions. This is one of the reasons why people here are suspecting you are a plant or a fake.

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Wheunis, note what you wrote:

As opposed to simply accepting "his word" for it?

I don't think too many of us here are doing that. The way I see it, most if not all consider him as the prime suspect or candidate, not just because of "his word", but because of his involvment with P&G and other things. But I suspect you already know this and for whatever reason, you have chosen to distort or ignore our actual position (*).

Consider the following:
Criminals and politicians, they never open their mouths after noting they are not getting their cut?
The boy who cried wolf... There was never a wolf?

(*) This is a standard believer/woo tactic, twisting their oponent's positions. This is one of the reasons why people here are suspecting you are a plant or a fake.

(*) My position(s) having been similarly twisted ad absurdum, out of context numerous times, and ridiculed in this short span of time, I hold no value to the statement.

To answer you, regardless of you believing, or even sparing as much a quarter breath to give a scrat;
Yes I have considered exactly that. Criminals very often open their mouths.
And for a lack of statistics at hand, what percentage of them snitched a bunch of lies? Is that information known to me? Factually? No it is not.

I welcome yet again, for your consideration, that nothing but circumstantial coincidences and a "confession" stands as "evidence" for Bob being truthful.

I must plead that you ask yourself the pertinent questions, regarding Bob's confessions.
He said himself that he never confessed, for fear of prosecution. To his own claim he only pursued the matter after legal advice assured him that repercussions would not be forthcoming.
That matter is rather important. And I have brought it up previously.
Where is the courts in all this?

If you get done out of a "contract" by the others on your team, do you run to the media, or the court?
So then, I ask (of you, Bob, anybody) - why was his first stop P. Morris and a media reveal?

How does that behavior not smell odd to anyone?

[Skeptical Greg]

How do you know that was his first stop ?

What's odd about trying to get a piece of the pie ?

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

How do you know that was his first stop ?

What's odd about trying to get a piece of the pie ?

I do not know what his real steps were.
He has us believe however that he sought legal advice before "coming out".

What's wrong with him getting his piece of the pie?
The part where he never actually lays claim to said piece.
Laying claim to your piece is done in court.
No such court case has been submitted to date.

So nothing wrong with saying you want it, and then having your actions speak louder by showing you never even filed a case.
... Despite having apparently sought legal advice...

How do I know he went to the media first and not the court? Quite simply for that same fact that no such court case exists.

Patterson v. Heironimus = non-existent.

The media however had the day of their lives!
Unless you are suggesting that they just ran into each other on the set and decided to reveal the costume (look-alike) together because of their massive little friendship-forming coincidence?

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't know what you are in such a twist about..

The PGF was on an un-lit back burner for 40 years until internet forums and you-tube made it an event again..

Anyone who thought they could squeeze a buck out of it, has crawled out of the woodwork..

Are you just as upset with Bill Munns and MK Davis ?

Or, are you someone who wants to cash-in and hasn't got picked up by the Discovery Channel ?

[GT/CS]

No-one is this unhinged, except Kerchak and a handfull of others, so I'm voting Troll and placing it on ignore.

[AttorneyTom]

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

Seems this thread's been sizzlin' all day. And it also seems the biggest sizzler has been chopped into horse meat now, so there's really <I have to> no need for me to beat the dead horse. <ugh>

But speaking of horses, real and serious but now-dead horses...

Au contraire Molfraire. You're shortchanging the 'horses' aspect a little me thinks. There's actually several valid reasons why their using horses makes genuine (if not clever) sense.

Firstly, I know Patterson was many things, most of them nefarious apparently too, but he was also and truly a cowboy. And a real and true cowboy strays but only short distances away (in his daily life) without his/a horse being somewhere nearby. To an outdoors-man cowboy like him, using horses for whatever the reasons was and is a total no-brainer.

Second, and although I'm not a hunter, I know hunting on/with horses is a time honored and to the present day practice, and even popular in certain areas. Not all hunters do it I know, but it is a real and viable manner of hunting. So him out there appearing to be 'hunting' Bigfoot on horseback is not odd or contrived at all.

Third, distance. At a decent walking pace, I'd say a horse can easily cover twice the ground/distance than a man on foot on flat ground can. Against a man with 30 pounds of clothes and equipment on a mountain trail, even more I bet. On horseback you can get 5 miles further down the trail yet expend but 1/500th the energy doing so.

Obviously, if you're trying to pull off the kind of stunt he did, wanting to go as far back into primitive nowhereville as possible makes total sense. In several ways. And using horses to do so NOT because of the reasons mentioned for Patterson are truly (if not ironically) valid, BUT because horses can much more easily, quietly and quickly go way back in to a nice quiet place to produce 'the big hoax' without the prying eyes of humanity. Simple. Essentially, those first two reasons were his cover story, the last one his actual intent.

And I know the 'film site' isn't necessarily Ice Station Zebra, but even duty driven die-hard Bigfooters have had to carefully and deliberately make their way back to the site to see it because it is exactly back-in-there nowhereville. It's so far back in there, one of the few major discrepancies in BH's story is 'where' exactly it happened. His recollection was/is a little vague.

Truly AT, I'm not arguing with you. Just offering some insight you might not have considered.

I just thought I saw somewhere that Bobo and Co. walked to the spot from the nearest road in 15 minutes ? Maybe it was an FB Episode ? But, yes.. if it is a hike.. Horse it all the way ! Maybe no road it '67 .. I dont know ?

In other news.. Did all of these peeps attend the same latin class ?

[wheunis]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

I don't know what you are in such a twist about..

The PGF was on an un-lit back burner for 40 years until internet forums and you-tube made it an event again..

Anyone who thought they could squeeze a buck out of it, has crawled out of the woodwork..

Are you just as upset with Bill Munns and MK Davis ?

Or, are you someone who wants to cash-in and hasn't got picked up by the Discovery Channel ?

I wouldn't take an offer from Disc.Netw. with all the drivel they've been playing lately...

Am I upset at Munns and Davis?
I wasn't at first. They were investigating. Investigation is good!
Then they made their conclusions. Still not upset, but rather annoyed at some of the claims. Still, just because something doesn't agree with me, doesn't make it wrong.

And then they (well, Munns, dunno about Davis so much) jumped the moneywagon, press tours, conferences, etc.
Righto! Now I am upset with them!

Whenever your sole motive in life becomes money above all else, you're off the christmas list imo.

And as to that first line in your post, where can I also get this magic internet emotion detector? Does it come with a fully functional spirit box?
Most of the time, I am in quite a happy mood while typing. I find it rather therapeutic actually.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by River

What type of evidence would be convincing to you of Heironimus's claims? (be specific please)

Ummm... the actual suit would kind of do it for me.

RayG

[AttorneyTom]

I mean I just cant imagine any of those guys actually hiking.. walking.. exerting a physical effort to do something ? Unless donuts are involved.. but even then.. even shaving at the nearest Marriot would not be something I could envision.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

The polygraph is a proven, reliable, investigative tool..

One of it's most effective uses, is establishing who is, or is not, willing to submit to an examination.

Proven? When?

I wouldn't be willing to take a polygraph test because there's nothing scientific about them. They do not detect lies.

Here's a little tidbit from the article 'Exploring Controversies in the Art and Science of Polygraph Testing':

An expose on private polygraph firms aired by 60 Minutes in 1986 underscores the subjectivity of the process and its susceptibility to confirmation bias due to the contamination of an examiner's diagnosis with information obtained outside of the formal polygraph test. As summarized by Ben-Shakhar (1991, 236):


Three different polygraph firms were independently called to test an alleged theft of a camera and lens from a photography magazine office employing four employees. In fact, nothing was stolen from the office, but the polygraph examiners were told that it could only have been done by one of the four employees. Each polygraph examiner was told that "it might have been--," with a different employee being fingered in each case (a decidedly weak fingering). In each case, the polygraph examiner identified the "fingered" employee as deceptive, and cleared the other "suspects."

Moreover, all polygraph examiners expressed complete confidence in their decisions. This demonstrates not only that polygraph examiners can go wrong, but that their judgment and decision-making processes are infected by a systematic and powerful source of bias, a bias caused by contamination.


RayG

[GT/CS]

1986?
I'm sure there haven't been any improvements since then.

[AttorneyTom]

A polygraph examination is as good as the examiner.

I have sat through 30 or so with people (clients) and my experience is that 20% were found to be "truthful"... another 20% were found to be "desceptive"... and then the remainder were found to be " inconclusive". Health issues.. medications... substance abuse.. etc. contribute to the later.

The number one thing with this seems to be the formulation of the questions. I dont believe this to be a science. There are so many variables other than the questions and I dont think that this procedure has evolved very much since the early 1970's.. other than the respiration monitor thing. But hey.. What do I know ?