Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

I sense in BH, the same sincerity you do ..

He has to be portrayed as sinister by the Pattycakes...
If his story is not contrived, the jig is up ...

[William Parcher]

Yes, if his story is not contrived then the jig is up. But even if he has contemporarily added changes and/or new affirmations about the event, it doesn't mean that he wasn't the guy in the suit after all. Maybe Heironimus is too human to work as a fully-convincing confessor. He doesn't strategically slice out the parts that obviously don't make sense or customize the story to perfectly counter the arguments of the Pattycakes. No, he just tells it the way he tells it. If you don't believe him then you don't. He has always been a pretty stereotypical working guy in Yakima, and now he tells us about his experience wearing the suit in the PGF. No matter how much any of us wishes he could produce physical evidence or get his recollective accounts in a better sort of order (Bob, leave out apparently contrary bits, would you please?)... he only just tells it like it was as far as he can remember. Bob seems willing to go on live radio shows and be asked questions that he doesn't know about in advance. He sounds like an average guy that is gonna tell you what he remembers about the event. He doesn't even seem to make stuff up as he goes. Some things he has no knowledge of, nor had opportunity to know and for these you will get a blank from him. If he was a constantly scheming liar, I would expect him to try to spontaneously concoct deadly answers to every question. He doesn't.

If he is a conniving liar trying to convince the world that he wore the suit, why in the world would he tell us that his brother said that Patterson talked about making the suit from a dead red horse? WTF? That doesn't even sound like something a liar would say. I think we can presume that BH, Howard, RP & BG are not colorblind and that all of them could see that Patty was not red. So why interject some stupid lie that the suit was the skin of a red horse? Because that's not what Bob Heironimus is saying. He can't tell us exactly what materials were used in the suit because he never really knew. He tells us what his brother was told by Roger. You get what you get from Bob. He doesn't even say that Patterson said he took a red horsehide and dyed it black. If Bob speculates that it was a red hide dyed black, it's not because he heard that from his brother or Roger. It would be because he actually thought that Patterson told the truth to Howard, but didn't mention coloring the whole thing black or very dark brown (it always looks like shades of black to me, and never brown).

What are we expected to think of this kind of a crazy addition to a hoaxed confession story when you just decide to talk about your brother being told by Patterson that the suit came from a dead red horse? I mean, you not only gotta make up the story of your brother hearing this from Patterson, but you have to fabricate the color of the skin and you pick RED. WTF?

If Bob Heironimus is lying about wearing the PGF suit, then it is much more than an armchair hoax. It's some kind of unique psychopathy that compels the "victim" to even go as far as implicating his neighbor (Gimlin) as the real liar. I wore the suit and that's the truth. My old buddy Bob Gimlin, who still lives real close to me, has for some reason decided to continue lying about this film. Bob Heironimus is telling us that Bob Gimlin hasn't stopped lying about the PGF right from the start. PGF skeptics already presume that, no matter what they think about BH.

[Skeptical Greg]

I hope Roger Knights is reading this.. He really needs to give some thought to what you are saying...



P.S.
I don't know if I will have the opportunity, since I don't post much at BFF anymore, and I don't care to force the issue; but if the opportunity arises, do you mind if I quote all or part of this ?

[LTC8K6]

I like my theory that Patterson had more than one take, and the suit he gave BH to wear just didn't look right on film.

That is, BH did wear a suit like he described for Roger, but BH's performance was cut from the final movie in favor of a different suit and actor.

Who gets a hoax film just right on the first take?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I like my theory that Patterson had more than one take, and the suit he gave BH to wear just didn't look right on film.

That is, BH did wear a suit like he described for Roger, but BH's performance was cut from the final movie in favor of a different suit and actor.

Who gets a hoax film just right on the first take?

What nails it for me, is BH says he jumped into a hole by a large uprooted tree at the end of the walk; and a large uprooted tree is exactly what we see Patty approaching at the end of the film..

It's not that apparent unless you really study the zoomed in version on LMS, and I get the impression BH hasn't really studied the film all that close.

He comes out and says he looked back twice, so he's not worried about claiming something happened, that didn't show on the film ..

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

I hope Roger Knights is reading this.. He really needs to give some thought to what you are saying...

Of course Knights reads this forum. He's already made mention of my (JREF) posts on BFF, so we know this is (or was) true. You can bet that RK isn't the only "player" in the Bigfoot Game that reads these threads. Any thinking Pattycake (is that an oxymoron?) that has ever heard of the JREF Skeptical Bigfoot threads is going to be glued to this joint. Hello Loren Coleman, Craig Woolheater, Rick Noll, etc. Welcome to the best PGF/Bigfoot skepticism forum that exists anywhere. You can find skepticism on BFF and Cryptomundo, but it just ain't the same as the real deal right here. I'm continually amazed and awed by the observational skills and creativity of argument that comes from the handful of Bigfoot skeptic colleagues here. Bigfoot is so damn elusive and chameleonic that skeptics have little choice other than to argue against the believer - instead of simply arguing against Bigfoot as a creature. It's a real challenge to exclude ad hom arguments, because Bigfoot seems to be only a fancy property of the beliefs of believers, instead of a real animal that reproduces, eats, craps, dies or gets killed. How do you argue against a creature that is only a belief without talking about the believer? Instantly you must adopt an ad hom position, because that is the only thing that gets right to the point. You, me and the rest of the Bigfoot skeptics ought to know that ticky-tacky arguing against individual pieces of evidence is a waste of time if you think you are going to make a grassroots shift in beliefs. Showing that the act of pouring a casting agent into a footprint can result in cool parallel curvy lines in the cast isn't enough to pursuade believers into thinking that they got hosed by "Bigfoot experts". Even those experts might not like the idea that they got punked by some other Bigfooter. The thing that sticks in your mind however, is the idea that these folks are all objective souls who understand their own fallibility and credulity and are simply looking at the Bigfoot phenomena with an open mind. But they don't act that way. They keep on thinking what they started out thinking. Bigfoot exists and so they have to reverse-engineer any arguments to the contrary.

Do you know how the Pattycakes know that Patty is a real Bigfoot? Well, Bob Heironimus says she was made from red horsehide. We can all see that she is instead black, and so we automatically know that he is a liar. He said red, but she is black. He's a liar and nobody should pay any attention to what he has said or might say in the future. Heironimus is dead right out of the starting gate, and Patty always was alive. They might even suggest that BH is badder than bad. We all hate the criminal who lies on the stand claiming his innocence. But BH is something else entirely. Here's a guy that had nothing to do with the PGF, yet he makes a complex confession as if he was originally guilty of the crime and goes as far as implicating his neighbor as an accomplice. What kind of crazy crap is that? This is real died-in-the-wool insanity right? But there never could be such a trial because Heironimus would be declared insane and unfit for trial at the immediate onset. Why? Because he said the suit was made from a red horse and everyone can see that Patty is black!

Quote:

P.S. I don't know if I will have the opportunity, since I don't post much at BFF anymore, and I don't care to force the issue; but if the opportunity arises, do you mind if I quote all or part of this?

I've said it to you before and I'll say it again. You have my full permission to quote anything I write here on the BFF or in any other forum. I know it doesn't feel right to do this without asking me each time, but I'm telling you that you don't have to ask for this.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I like my theory that Patterson had more than one take, and the suit he gave BH to wear just didn't look right on film. That is, BH did wear a suit like he described for Roger, but BH's performance was cut from the final movie in favor of a different suit and actor. Who gets a hoax film just right on the first take?

That's cool, and I don't have a slam dunk rebuttal (coming from a guy that thinks BH was the only dude in a one-take filming).

All I can do is ask you a question and also offer a speculation.

Creating a baseline uderstanding that leads to my question: You think that BH did wear a suit and was filmed by Patterson. You further think that some other guy (we'll call him Joe Blow) also wore a suit and was filmed by Patterson. RP had the opportunity to make a choice between the two actors and chose Joe Blow instead of BH. The on-screen acting and movements of BH and JB are so similar that BH can't automatically know that he wasn't really the guy in the suit when he watches the PGF (even if he never ever knew, and still doesn't know about JB).

My question (I guess there are multiple questions here): Do you think that BH wore a suit and was filmed by Patterson and yet is essentially innocently naive to the fact that RP also filmed Joe Blow and used his take instead? I'm asking if you think BH is simply wrong, instead of knowingly lying. If BH has any clue that there was a Joe Blow (a guy that was filmed by RP just like he was), then he ought not to be so confident that the Patty we all see is him instead of JB. If BH even knows or could possibly speculate that there was a Joe Blow, then why doesn't he mention this?

My speculation: Bob Heironimus is confidently claiming to be Patty because he knows that he was Patty. He knows this because he wore the suit for Roger and when he finally got to see the PGF he could see that it was him after all. Bob understood that Roger planned a hoax, executed it using him, and then went on marketing it to the world as if it were real.

If Patty was Joe Blow instead of Bob Heironimus, then there is a situation worth mentioning. Joe Blow must be a real person. Is he alive or dead? Is he watching BH make all of these declarative claims in the press to being Patty? Does he not have any interest in making a confession himself that would override BH? It seems to me that BH is riding some kind of confidence wave that allows him to feel that Joe Blow won't come out of the woodwork and say that he is wrong. If Joe Blow exists but BH never ever knew about him... why don't we hear from this Joe Blow? Does he have a real and important reason to stay silent after all of the things that BH has said? I mean, if JB came out and confessed, it wouldn't necessarily label BH as a fabricating liar. He could say that we obviously were both actors for Patterson, and he eventually decided to use my take instead of yours. Bob, I understand why you think you were Patty because Roger had us both do the essentially same thing out on the sandbar. Joe is then going to have to point out why he knows it was his take that was used, instead of the one with BH.

Who is Joe Blow? Is it Bob Gimlin?

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Bigfoot exists and so they have to reverse-engineer any arguments to the contrary.

I really liked that ...

I particularly like the contradictions regarding why no one has ever shot a Bigfoot, and why someone is in danger of being shot if they dress up like one...

Go figure..

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

I really liked that ...

Thanks, I guess. The same thing has already been said here fifteen different ways and they usually include the term excuses.

Quote:

I particularly like the contradictions regarding why no one has ever shot a Bigfoot, and why someone is in danger of being shot if they dress up like one...

People have shot and killed Bigfoot. The records tell of it. The only problem is that the body has never been recovered. For a Bigfooter, that isn't so much a problem as an unfortunate feature of the Bigfoot phenomenon. Eventually a body will be recovered. Experts have been saying that this will take 5-10 years. They've been saying this same thing for forty years. But that ongoing and unfulfilled prophesy doesn't mean that Bigfoot doesn't exist. No, you see the animal does exist and we are only mortal humans left to deal with a continual bad luck situation that always works in the favor of this hidden beast. You see, Bigfoot is not just a fantastic creature. It's a fantastic creature that always remains fully resistant to any kind of real confirmation.

Some credible guy shot and killed a Bigfoot but the body never made it to an institution. I don't believe that story and I still don't believe that Bigfoot exists. What? Are you so confined to your computer chair that you can't understand that somebody could kill an animal and yet that animal doesn't end up on a lab? Do you live deep in a city or what? Have you ever hunted or what? Are you calling the guy that killed a Bigfoot a liar, or what?

[William Parcher]

Who is this Apeman on BFF? Apparently he's some primate biologist who has been working in Africa with mountain gorillas, and yet he seems to not think outright that the PGF shows a guy in a suit. He has been playing the Patty Game with an inclination to affirm ideas that nothing about the figure can be shown to be something other than what you might see in a gorilla. We know he is a scientist and I'm wondering if he is of the same ilk as Meldrum. They have spent time in universities and the field and just can't look at the PGF and think "That's a guy in a suit."

Are we all supposed to look at their resumes, look at what they say about the PGF, and then step back with a whoa-better-rethink-this-thing because these college guys are leaning towards PGF authenticity? If a college guy thinks that Patty is a Bigfoot should we oughta-betcha-safe harbor think the same?

My personal opinion is to put Meldrum, Apeman & Goodall in the same rowboat. They almost certainly do good scientific work with known apes. But when it comes to this very special hypothetical hominoid ape (Bigfoot), they are as woo woo woo as any other woo woo woo. The credentials vanish when you woo about woo.

[Skeptical Greg]

Goodall sums it up when she says she ' wants ' Bigfoot to be real ...

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

X Zone Radio at 10pm EST.

What a freaking joke of a radio show. I'm listening to this Rob McConnell and he can't even edit out his comments to his "producers". Yeah, he's running his own show live and uncensored. Heironimus isn't answering his call to do the show that he previously agreed to do. Where is Bob? Okay, so Rob instead goes on with a somewhat skeptical commentary about PGF/Bigfoot and asks for callers. Here we go live with the call-in Pattycakes. First caller asks how a human head fits into Patty's head. It doesn't fit right? Here we go...

[William Parcher]

This idiot talk show host just gave out Bob Heironimus' home phone number to the entire audience because he doesn't realize that all of his comments to his producer are being heard by us listeners. It's fun to listen because it is so dysfunctional and bizarre. Okay, let's listen to more callers who are Bigfoot believers. Where is Bob? Oh my.

[William Parcher]

Yeah Bob is finally on. Go Bob go!

[rgann]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Who is this Apeman on BFF? Apparently he's some primate biologist who has been working in Africa with mountain gorillas, and yet he seems to not think outright that the PGF shows a guy in a suit. He has been playing the Patty Game with an inclination to affirm ideas that nothing about the figure can be shown to be something other than what you might see in a gorilla.

William

To me that was one of the considerations that dashed my nostalgic hopes that the PGF was authentic.

I have seen countless gorilla/patty comparison images with similar skin folds, bare spots, lumps etc. However the point I got from all these exercises was that a gorilla/hairy monster suit has certain tell tale signs (as per FX guys) and looking at Patty the accumulation of the various signifiers says it’s a suit. It’s in the amount of signifiers that is the give away. What I really would like to see is a list with all the suit signs and see if I can find one primate images that matches all these signs, I am doubtful, the fact that there are numerous suit signs in Patty and that if someone can find “one off” similar primate pictures is not an indication Patty is a primate but that the original suit design was based on putting fur on a human being which in turn will have many of the characteristics of other primates, hence the deception/effect.

To me its similar to the Virgin Mary in the tortilla bit, yes the silhouette appears to be similar to an artists sketch/rendering of a woman but given that we have no images of the original Virgin, why assume it’s her? So yes there is a hairy dude walking thru the PGF that looks like the way an FX artist would build a suit, but since we don’t have an image or a body why assume its Patty?

Rick

[William Parcher]

BH just dropped a bombshell. He says that Gimlin told him face-to-face that he's been lying about the PGF all along and isn't going to stop now. It's the first time we've explicitly heard BH say that Gimlin is lying with intent to hoax and he intends to continue to do so. How long can this last? The jig is up and Bob really was Patty.

[William Parcher]

Sorry for giving this blow-by-low commentary of the radio show. Bob Heironimus just launched a bombshell. He says that he has become friendly again with Gimlin after the Greg Long book. He said that he went to Gimlin and suggested that they both come out to admit the hoax. Gimlin told him no and that he had been lying from day one and and isn't about to stop lying. He didn't say something to BH like "We did put you in the suit, but you don't know that Joe Blow also wore the suit and he is the guy we used in the film."

So Roger Knights, et al... you need to stop talking about red horsehides, a massive IM index and an unhaman walk. Right now you need to go directly to Bob Gimlin and ask him if BH is making up a new lie about him where he says that he's just gonna keep on hoaxing everybody. You have got to ask Bob Gimlin about this huge claim that Heironimus just made on live radio.

The question of the authenticity of the PGF is now boiling down to the personal neighborhood conversations between the two Bobs.

[William Parcher]

Bob's live unscripted testimony and honest demeanor is totally devastating to Pattycakes. They have got to pray that he doesn't continue to offer himself to these live interview/question shows. Good God, the PGF is a fake just like we thought it was. The guy in the suit was Bob Heironimus, and Gimlin agrees in private conversation to him. Shame shame shame!

Ha ha ha. It's a joke right? They will still believe won't they? Ha ha ha. The real joke is on the skeptics for thinking that when the guy who wore the suit comes forward that everyone will get the Patterson joke. Ha ha ha. Let's all just laugh.

[LTC8K6]

I think my post was taken way too seriously...

Quote:

You think that BH did wear a suit and was filmed by Patterson. You further think that some other guy (we'll call him Joe Blow) also wore a suit and was filmed by Patterson.

Not really, no. I care not a whit who was in the suit, actually. I came up with that theory very early on whilst battling with Lu and Beckjord.

I will say that I do think it's unlikely that there would only be one take and no rehearsals or practicing, and that it's unlikely that Patterson would have gotten the look and basic fit of the suit right without any trial and error.

We know for a fact that Patterson practiced shooting scenes for the movie, including casting tracks.

I don't believe they all showed up at the creek for the first time and bingo they had the PGF as we see it today in one try.

The counter to that might well be that they had to do it in a short time because logging crews were all over the joint and they might have been spotted...except that there is no record of a crew running into them at all while they were there as far as I know.

Does it seem odd that Laverty and crew are supposedly all over the area, to the point of visiting the exact spot the next day, yet Laverty's crew never runs into the two at their camps? Maybe not. I dunno...

[RayG]

Since we have neither Patty nor any suit, does it really matter what BH or BG say about a 40 year-old incident?

No matter how convincing, earnest, or honest BH sounds, I need more evidence than him saying it's so.

At this point, unless he comes up with the suit, BH's recollections are no better than anyone else that has a story to tell about bigfoot.

RayG

[Correa Neto]

Folks, lets be impartial here...

Hieronimus sounds honest, seems to have no reasons to create and spread such a detailed tale, etc. But the same can be said about many other people, such as politicians, gossipers, stock market speculators, UFO abductees, bigfoot investigators, a father who tells his children about Santa Claus, priests, criminals, and the list goes on.

I think this is not the best path...

I also have my share of speculations on how PGF could have been shot, but again, that's not the approach I would choose (at least at this time).

The best approach, IMHO, is to check the claims about PGF subject, such as inhuman gait, IMs, etc. As an example, for a bipedal ape, Patty looks quite like an upright gorilla. And we've covered a lot of these issues along the bigfoot threads. I think its reasonably safe to say we looked upon most if not all claims about the subject of PGF and concluded a bloke in a suit can do the trick. And this is the main point. This is where I think the discussion must be focused, since even if Hieronimus is somehow proven not to be the bloke-in-the-suit, it will mean nothing but that he was not the bloke-in-the-suit... To sum things up, I feel its about time to let the whole PGF issue RIP unless something new (and good) shows up.

The way I see it, Hieronimus interview was only usefull for one thing, Gimlim's role in the hoax was brought in to light. Why only focus on Patterson? If PGF was a hoax, then both men were involved. And I have little if any doubts. Gimlim will never say it was a hoax.

[LTC8K6]

Yes, let's keep the cart behind the horse.

The default position is that this is a guy in a suit, and that it might be a sasquatch. There is no need to prove or support the default position.

We don't start by assuming it is a sasquatch and then try to show why it's a guy in a suit.

We start at the default position, and we let the believers show the world that it's a sasquatch, since that is their claim. It's something they must do, something they have not even begun to do. They have shown no evidence whatsoever to make even a dent in the default position, imo.

Now, we will have screamers saying that their default position is that Patty is a sasquatch. Well, that's just not the way the world works.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I think my post was taken way too seriously...

Understood.

Quote:

I will say that I do think it's unlikely that there would only be one take and no rehearsals or practicing, and that it's unlikely that Patterson would have gotten the look and basic fit of the suit right without any trial and error.

BH makes claims that this stuff did happen. He says that RP summoned him to his house after BH agreed to be Patty (this was an agreement through Gimlin). At the house and in the yard he was helped into the suit and did practice walking for Roger. RP gave him some instructions on how he wanted the walk to appear. BH satisfied RP with his Patty Walk. Roger also made adjustments to the suit itself, presumably to make direct changes to adapt it to Bob's actual physique. Bob also tells us that Patricia Patterson was watching this through the window of their house.

Quote:

I don't believe they all showed up at the creek for the first time and bingo they had the PGF as we see it today in one try.

If BH is telling the truth, then he only was at Bluff Creek for one day and the Patty scene itself was a single take. He says he never stumbled while doing the walk. It is possible that Roger removed (cut) portions of the walk scene and only let us see the bits he wanted us to see. As it is, we can already see continuity incongruences with the film footage we have. MK Davis says that when he examined the film, he noticed three occasions in the Patty Walk where he says that RP stopped filming. That is in spite of Roger saying he never did stop filming (lift his finger off the shutter). What I can't understand is how Davis can determine that these are instances of shutter halts instead of editing (cutting). I think the end result is going to look the same for either cause.

Quote:

The counter to that might well be that they had to do it in a short time because logging crews were all over the joint and they might have been spotted...except that there is no record of a crew running into them at all while they were there as far as I know.

Does it seem odd that Laverty and crew are supposedly all over the area, to the point of visiting the exact spot the next day, yet Laverty's crew never runs into the two at their camps? Maybe not. I dunno...

Yeah it's odd. P&G were supposidly camped at Louse Camp(site). Their truck and horse provisions should have been there even if they were out on the horses. I wonder if Louse Camp is visible from the logging road. Laverty passed through there at a time when the truck should have been parked. He makes no mention of seeing the truck, and I'm curious if he would have seen Louse Camp itself.

[LTC8K6]

Well, there were 2 camps, weren't there? They moved their camp closer to Bluff Creek on Thursday. Or am I misunderstanding? That's from Murphy's PGF history, I think.

So they were in the area a while riding around on horses and they moved their camp at least once, and the whole time, save for the weekends, Laverty's crew is in the area also.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Well, there were 2 camps, weren't there? They moved their camp closer to Bluff Creek on Thursday. Or am I misunderstanding? That's from Murphy's PGF history, I think.

Here is what we get from the Murphy essay...

Quote:

Patterson and Gimlin traveled to the Bluff Creek area in a truck, taking with them three horses. By the time the men arrived at their destination, rain had all but destroyed the tracks. After setting up camp near Bluff Creek itself, the men set out on horseback to explore the area. Patterson was intrigued with the scenery and autumn colors. He used 76-feet of the first film roll for general filming and shots of both himself and Gimlin.

On Thursday evening, October 19, 1967, the men set up their camp close to Bluff Creek itself. Gimlin arose early the next morning and rode out of the camp site while Patterson slept-in. Gimlin arrived back at the camp at about 10:00 a.m. Patterson was not at the camp at this time. He returned after a little while and asked Gimlin what area he had covered on his early ride. Gimlin told him where he had been after which Patterson suggested they re-explore an area they had previously explored. Gimlin agreed and the men left at about twelve noon.

The wording is strange because it does sound like they moved camps, but both camps are described almost identically (near Bluff Creek itself & close to Bluff creek itself). When Green interviewed Gimlin in 1992, he talks about their camp, but not of moving it. That doesn't automatically mean they didn't. If it had been Heironimus talking about the camp(s), the Pattycakes would immediately seize upon him not mentioning moving the camp and call it "changing his story again". Patterson & Gimlin are always allowed inconsistencies and omissions, and these are never to be declared as possible indications of a hoax.

[LTC8K6]

I read it as if they initially set up near the tracks they heard about that caused them to make the trip. The tracks that were washed out "gobs of mud" or whatever description they gave for them. Then they moved later to the site closer to Bluff Creek, from which they went out on horseback to film, etc.

[LTC8K6]

Why does a creature need to stink from 80 feet away anyway? If it stinks from 80 feet away in the woods, then the odor must kill things from 10 feet away.

[Correa Neto]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Yes, let's keep the cart behind the horse.

The default position is that this is a guy in a suit, and that it might be a sasquatch. There is no need to prove or support the default position.

We don't start by assuming it is a sasquatch and then try to show why it's a guy in a suit.

We start at the default position, and we let the believers show the world that it's a sasquatch, since that is their claim. It's something they must do, something they have not even begun to do. They have shown no evidence whatsoever to make even a dent in the default position, imo.

Now, we will have screamers saying that their default position is that Patty is a sasquatch. Well, that's just not the way the world works.

That's not the way it works, but for us. Unfortunately, for most people, belief is all it takes. Evidence pieces required to back a belief do not need to be reliable. A gossip or a tale will be more than enough in such cases where the default position is the reality of a fringe subject (or religious doctrine/dogma).

Many footers more than once said they believe, and that's all they need; some are aware oft the many weaknesses of such position. Most are not. They believe their evidence quality standards are good enough for most if not all purposes; if its good for them, then it must be good for us. Usually the fight starts as soon as the flaws are shown, for they can't (or don't want to) understand why its not.

You can change "footer" by any other fringe subject/religion of your choice (croppie, UFOlogist, creationist, etc.).

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Six days without a posting about Bigfoot is too long...

I was at the beach, busy not thinking about mid-tarsal breaks...

http://home.att.net/~ltc8k9/beach1.jpg

Ahhh... I too have taken a well deserved break. Off to the mountains and hot springs.

http://www.nasuinfo.or.jp/freespace/...o/photo_04.jpg

While away I had a wonderfully in-depth conversation on the bigfoot phenomenom with a a very intelligent person for whom bigfoot is outside their schema. The kind of conversation that allows you to get some perspective and work out some un-ironed ideas/thoughts that I'd like to share.

Bigfoot the phenomenom is fascinating and a subject that is a pure goldmine for a wealth of insights into all manner of aspects of humanity. It's like Shaolin training ground for critical thinking and observation. Bigfoot the concept, the sales pitch, the Scientology wannabe... it just gets more ridiculous with every passing day and it's not just because of another day without reliable evidence.

William is right, bigfoot is role play for adults. It's cult-lite without the uniforms (unless you count the hat thing). People who profess strong belief and portray themselves as open-minded critical thinkers simply have no excuse for their self-delusion.

Correa and LTC are right, the PGF is dead. It's been so thoroughly deflated of Pattycakes 'it's no suit' arguments that it's counter-productive to repeat the demonstrations everytime someone who is woefully out to lunch shows up.

RayG is right, Heironimus' claim of being in the suit is insufficient. However, it is very worthy of consideration as WP has illustrated. I for long was quite satisfied that he was the latest pretender. Now I'm not sure at all if for only the fact that we know he was connected with P & G and now has no problem continually representing his story while Gimlin stays silent. It's not like he's cooking up some mad story about some guy he doesn't know. They're practically neighbours.

At this point I'm more interested in The Perpetuators, The Boonswogglers, The Gameboard Holders, The Choreographers... if that makes any sense. We've walked this old dog up and down the street so many times that IMO it would be more productive to put a light on the mechanics of how this phenomenom perpetuates itself. I'm more interested in the Coleman's, the Noll's, and the Moneymakers'. Also the various boards and their gameplayers; the Multiple Encounters', squatchcommando's, etc. At this point as for as I'm concerned bigfoot is a myth and anyone actively trying to convince people otherwise are pretty much Sylvia Browne supporters or Loose Changers.

[William Parcher]

Knights is now harping on the question of "how many horses?", and how many times did P&G borrow Chico (BH's horse). He thinks they must have borrowed the horse twice and that BH blows his liar cover by not mentioning both occasions. He bases this on Chico showing up in the "riding horses with scenery" shots and the need for Chico to be ridden by BH to/from the camp to the film site.

Not necessarily.

Let's assume BH is telling the truth that P&G picked up Chico on a Sunday (then left for Bluff Creek) and BH arrived at Bluff Creek on Wednesday to wear the suit. This means that P&G had Chico at Bluff Creek (and environs) for one or two days before BH shows up. They also have Chico at Bluff Creek after BH leaves. In this period of time they can film the scenes riding the horses.

Knights is assuming that P&G told the truth about staying continuously at BC for three weeks, and presumably with Chico. I think he therefore also assumes that the riding with scenery shots were taken well before the time that BH claims he arrived on the scene.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Usually the fight starts as soon as the flaws are shown, for they can't (or don't want to) understand why its not.

You can change "footer" by any other fringe subject/religion of your choice (croppie, UFOlogist, creationist, etc.).

Yes. Yes. Yes. This needs to be emphasized. This is fringe belief, this is big hair, woo bait pure and simple. This was a central part of the discussion I was having with my friend while on vacation. The last time I asked for a BF proponent to try and demonstrate that being a UFO proponent is not based on the same quality of evidence I got a demonstration of the apparent evidence for Martian civilizations.

For people who profess to be more interested in the truth, many proponents have a pretty sorry track record of their behaviour when they get it.

[kitakaze]

Anyone seen this DTK/Luminous thread on the MABRC?:

Unseen Patty Footage Cropped Out of the Original.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

...
Knights is assuming that P&G told the truth about staying continuously at BC for three weeks, and presumably with Chico. I think he therefore also assumes that the riding with scenery shots were taken well before the time that BH claims he arrived on the scene.

Knights is also assuming we are talking about one roll of film; when all we have seen is about a minute of one roll out of many ...

[William Parcher]

Yep. Here is a better shot of what he and Davis are calling a Patty footprint. To me it sure looks like some debris wood with shadows. That roundish dark spot in the lower right is a footprint? Or is it the thing next to it that looks like a wah-wah pedal?

[kitakaze]

BFF:

Xzone lackluster overall.

Crow Logic:

Quote:

(snip) 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?

bipto:

Quote:

Really? Who? Seriously, I have no idea.

Crow Logic:

Quote:

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

bipto:

Quote:

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.

If bipto does not himself see this, could one of you lurkers pass on the message?:

Which five of us would you like?

ETA: Crow Logic, I think you raised some very valid issues in that thread. Two things:

1) I wasn't aware this thread had attained sentience.

2) Heironimus.

[LTC8K6]

That's old, actually. MK Davis has been trying to say those are sasquatch tracks for a long time. If it's a print, it's a cowboy boot print, imo.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/ima..._animation.htm

[Crowlogic]

So when is a true reproduction of PGF going to emerge? As a moderate skeptic I'm willing to listen to Bob Hieronomous on the Xzone and at least acknowledge that perhaps PGF should be renamed PGHF. Yet there are several elements in the film that beg for an answer if the film is indeed a hoax. The moment for me comes in a few frames where the palm creatures left hand is visable. The hand is huge and one can sense the mass of it as well as the mass in the arm to which it is attached. Darn fine detail Roger keeping the scale of the hand as well as the proper look of the bare flesh on the bare palm!

But the question must be asked, was Roger Patterson astute enough to contrive a film hoax that incorporates the seemingly cahotic elements of the wild camera wielding as he launched himself after the creature in an attempt to film it? Odd that Bob H has said little about the script outside of Patterson requesting that he face a camera a couple of times. The dynamics of what transpired on that sandbar was complex from the cameraman/subject standpoint. That is to say Patterson would have needed to explain to BoB H that as he's walking in the suite Patterson will be flingling the camera around and running after Bob H climbing over debris and at one point falling to his knees. Bob H can complain that the supposed suite was hot and heavy but it was Roger Patterson who expened the most energy at Bluff Creek and most of that energy didn't need to be spent if shooting a hoax in the middle of the wilderness. Wittness the Freeman Footage which required next to nothing from suite wearer or Freeman.

If one is to take at face value that Roger Patterson was a con artist, as Bob H says he was then a good explaniation of why Roger the con artist spent several weeks in the bush with Bob Gimlin doing what? If Roger Patterson was intent on committing a hoax then all he needed was a camera, a suite, a location (and there are thousands close to Yakima) and somone (Bob H?) to wear the suite. Why bring Bob Gimlin in on a hoax at all? Are two hoaxers more believable on interview than one hoaxer with an exciting film?

Consider that Patterson, Gimlin and Heirmonious created the Bluff Creek hoax and Roger Patterson sitiffed not only Bob Heirmonious but also Bob Gimlin. Consider that two members of this "unholy hoax" trio were bilked out of thier rightfull share from the getgo and nieither came forward within the first 12 months of the film? Consider that only one has blown the whistle on Roger the con man and only after 30+ years? Before we raise Bob Heironmious to sainthood its time to follow the money trail. Can it be said with a straight face that Bob Heironmious hasn't made any money from his story? I willing to bet that if you contacted the man with the promise of a print interview you'll be first talking with his attorney or accountant.

[mangler]

Kitakaze,

I checked this thread, "Anyone seen this DTK/Luminous thread on the MABRC?:"
Big mystery! Too funny! Took maybe five minutes to find four frames from two separate clips.

Typical bigfoot tracks. Where'd they go??????










Logic,

Are these the frames you are making reference to in your statement? ( "The moment for me comes in a few frames where the palm creatures left hand is visable. The hand is huge and one can sense the mass of it as well as the mass in the arm to which it is attached.") IMO there is no way that I could say with any conviction that these hands are of flesh and bone. You may believe you see hands, and that's fine, but what I see could just as easily be frickin mittens, or most anything for that matter.









m

[Crowlogic]

Mangler

Yes those are the frames. If you got them from the MK Davis gif then watch it a few times. For whatever reason a considerable amount of detail can be seen in the hand when in motion. As for what material the filmscape and creature are comprised of for all we know the trees are paper mache, the soil is flower and the rocks are green cheese. While I sit on the fence concerning much of the entire Sasquatch/PGF question I did encounter a certain gut reaction to the sight of that huge hand swinging down into view. It does surprise me that not much has been said about the sheer size of that hand.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Crowlogic

So when is a true reproduction of PGF going to emerge? .....

Why is that necessary ?

So when is a true reproduction of Patty going to emerge ?

You really should read Long's book. Not that it proves anything, but for what it reveals..

Roger Patterson was a cheat a liar and a thief , and knowing more about that makes it easier to imagine he could plan and execute a hoax ..

He didn't work for a living, so he had a lot of time on his hands to do a lot of experimenting..

Of course, even a lying thief could have got lucky, and made the only film of a real Bigfoot, deep in the heart of Bigfoot country forty years ago; but what really seems more likely ?

P.S.

The left hand ?

We really can't tell if that's the hand or if the subject is carrying a tambourine...