Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Gilbert Syndrome]

The Disney people weren't asked about the suit, and didn't opine about it. They were asked if they could reproduce Patty with an animatronic gadget. That was their specialty, at their theme parks. As I said.

So yeah, they weren't qualified in such things as making the actual suits, and thus their answer is of no importance compared to guys like Rick Baker et al.

 

[Roger Knights]

1958 is irrelevant. What is relevant in this context is 1967 and what was occurring both in Yakima and Bluff Creek at the time.

In August 1967 the BCM/Bluff Creek tracks that were used as the reasoning for P&G to come to Bluff Creek were created using Wallace stompers. A Scientologist level cult of Woods & Wildmen is required to deny what BCM was.

The creator of those stompers, Wallace, was both connected to Patterson and by the admission of the wife of the editor of the Times-Standard collaborating with Wallace to support his hoaxing.

On the contrary, 1958 is relevant, because by using the 1967 name of the local paper, you’ve made an error you should avoid in the future. It’s a minor error, as I said, but it’s worth a minor amount of effort to avoid. Here’s what Murphy’s Know the Sasquatch / Bigfoot says, at the bottom of page 146:

in December of 2002, June Beal, the widow of “Scoop” Beal, editor of the Humboldt Standard in 1958, said that her husband was in on the gag concerning the Wallace-related Bigfoot articles published at that time.

So it’s not just a minor error. Nothing in Mrs. Beal’s revelation concerns events in 1967. It’s a stretch to claim it does.

And the fact that Patterson once (as far as we know) visited Wallace doesn’t imply guilt by association in a 1967 track-hoaxing scheme. That’s another stretch.

As for your second paragraph, that’s over the top. I’ll repeat what I posted in response to you a few days ago:

Meldrum makes a good case against most of the 1958 track-hoax claims; see his Sasquatch—Legend Meets Science, pages 60–68. Those pages also discuss and dismiss most (but not all) other footprint-hoax claims, like the 1967 Blue Creek Mountain finds. John Green is quoted on page 68:

“We counted six hundred tracks at Bluff Creek one day in 1967. They showed great variation. The idea that they all could have been made by one carved foot is just nonsense.”
===========
It’s likely that Wallace hoaxed some of the prints that were found in the months preceding Jerry Crew’s arrival at the newspaper with his plaster casts. But that doesn’t mean all of them were. Wallace’s may have been copycat efforts; I’ve read arguments to that effect.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

And the fact that Patterson once (as far as we know) visited Wallace doesn’t imply guilt by association in a 1967 track-hoaxing scheme. That’s another stretch.

Yeah, if we totally ignore the fact that most of Rogers casts looked identical to Wallace's stompers, lol.

 

[kitakaze]

On the contrary, 1958 is relevant, because by using the 1967 name of the local paper, you’ve made an error you should avoid in the future. It’s a minor error, as I said, but it’s worth a minor amount of effort to avoid. Here’s what Murphy’s Know the Sasquatch / Bigfoot says, at the bottom of page 146:



So it’s not just a minor error. Nothing in Mrs. Beal’s revelation concerns events in 1967. It’s a stretch to claim it does.

And the fact that Patterson once (as far as we know) visited Wallace doesn’t imply guilt by association in a 1967 track-hoaxing scheme. That’s another stretch.

The late August 1967 BCM/Bluff Creek track event used as the reasoning for Patterson and Gimlin to come to Bluff Creek, for a week by Patterson's account, for three weeks by Gimlin's, was a hoax using Wallace made stompers.

Are you ready to deal with this?

It does not require tulpas to do so.

 

[William Parcher]

Roger Knights vs. The Realm of Skepticism and Critical Thinking.

Featured armament: Indexed lists loaded into high-capacity magazines. May or may not be lethal rounds.

 

[Northern Lights]

Yeah, if we totally ignore the fact that most of Rogers casts looked identical to Wallace's stompers, lol.

Which came first? The casts or the stompers?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

OMG! Not another "... the stompers were modeled after real Bigfoot prints "....

 

[HarryHenderson]

Roger Knights vs. The Realm of Skepticism and Critical Thinking.

Featured armament: Indexed lists loaded into high-capacity magazines. May or may not be lethal rounds.

Honestly, I'm still not sure exactly what Roger is arguing. Having been around his postings of Bigfoot since about 2002, I'm more than a little surprised he's not further along in the Bigfoot reality tour. His coming here is good for him.

 

[Northern Lights]

OMG! Not another "... the stompers were modeled after real Bigfoot prints "....

Um, you didn't answer my question.

 

[Roger Knights]

You wrote, in "26 reasons alphabet soup with Roger Knights,” item B, on BFF:

Knights claims to have interviewed Gary Record. I have done this myself. He made absolutely clear it was an evening in October 1967 and he was not in the military at the time. He said it was about 9pm. I have interviewed three of the other witnesses present. Knights fail.

Before we get into this, would you please answer my repeated requests for the names of the six witnesses. Surely you asked the three you interviewed who else was there.

I assume you’re counting Bob Heironimus as one witness you interviewed, Howard Heironimus as another, and Gary Record as a third. Am I right? Even if the latter two weren’t always present at the trunk, Bob should have been, and so he should have known all the names.

Of the missing three, one probable witness, Bill Heironimus, is dead. That leaves two living witnesses. Heironimus claims Hammermeister was there. That leaves one. Was it Russ Bohannon? I have a recollection of you hinting somewhere that it was. Please confirm, and tell me if Bob Heironimus (or someone else) told you it was he.

PS: Actually, there's a second unnamed witness, whose name is needed, because BH said that "six people saw the suit," meaning six besides himself.

 

[EHocking]

Um, you didn't answer my question.

And you have ignored my post in response to you calling me out.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there champ. If you're going to use other people's post to prove your point - try not to misquote them by trimming them down to remove context OK?
...
Not very honest of you - especially when you are complaining about fair treatment on this forum.

When are you going to address this?

 

[Roger Knights]

Roger Knights vs. The Realm of Skepticism and Critical Thinking.

Featured armament: Indexed lists loaded into high-capacity magazines. May or may not be lethal rounds.

An index is a research tool. Mine is a tool to help with the use of Long’s book, which is often cited. My index is neutral—I included every positive and negative comment I could find. If you think it isn’t neutral and you can find negative evaluations of Patterson that I missed, or positive ones I invented, this is your chance to embarrass me. I probably missed some on both sides, and I invited corrections. Here’s what I wrote:

Here is an index to facts and opinions about Patterson's characteristics, from positive to negative, taken from persons quoted in Greg Long's book, The Making of Bigfoot, or from Long himself. It should help persons engaging in Heironimus-related disputes to find the citations they’re looking for, or to counter citations from others.

Ideally, this index will be enlarged by disputants on their forums into a version in which each page cited is followed, on its own line, by a quotation or paraphrase of the text there.

(Greg Long is welcome to use it in any eBook second edition of The Making of Bigfoot.)

Roger Knights vs. The Realm of Skepticism and Critical Thinking.

“Versus,” huh? Please explain.

PS: I just realized why you’re upset—it’s because there are more positive than negative entries. But your gripe about that is with Greg Long, not me.

Anyway, some of the positive categories can be turned into negatives. His charm and dominating features, and his pugilism, can be characterized as sociopathic. His inventiveness and skill with tools can be cited on behalf of a claim that he could have made the suit.

 

[Chris L]

It's astounding to see some of the arguments, it really is. I know it's an oft-used example, but I find the Barney the Dinosaur comparison to be more than apt with its impossible inhuman dimensions.

To see a costume from a distance on grainy old footage that's been blown up and zoomed in on, and to then talk about muscles and impossible dimensions is about as daft as it gets, imo, and that's ignoring literally every other smoking gun, too.

1) No Bigfoot anywhere before or since.
2) Known hoaxer films Bigfoot whilst making a Bigfoot movie about finding Bigfoot.
3) Said Bigfoot looks almost identical to a picture in said hoaxers Bigfoot book.
4) Said picture is lifted from/inspired by the Roe account which oddly played out exactly like the PGF.
5) Hoaxer never returns to Bluff creek and instead buggers off to Thailand.

There's just too many to mention...

Dat bulging calf-muscle, doe!

5 is the clincher for me. If you film a BF at place A, place A would seem like the place to go to find BF. The only reason you don't go there is if you know there isn't a chance in Hades of finding one.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Which came first? The casts or the stompers?

The egg! No, wait...the chicken!

I imagine the stompers had been around for a while, tbh. Wallace was obviously a funny guy.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Um, you didn't answer my question.

Tbf, mate, you never asked him one.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

5 is the clincher for me. If you film a BF at place A, place A would seem like the place to go to find BF. The only reason you don't go there is if you know there isn't a chance in Hades of finding one.

Exactly, it seems like one of the bigger unseen blunders on their part. They found what they were looking for, could've led others to find it, and instead went home to show the footage, went on tour, then went to Thailand to have a knee's-up. Classic.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Pugilism isn't anti-social. It is not listed in any diagnostic guide to antisocial personality disorders.

It was the relentless bad-faith dealings of Roger Patterson with others that signals his sociopathy. He called it "living by his wits", a very telling comment related to the point that sociopaths think honest people are stupid. Deceiving people is being smart.

This is exactly the kind of personality that would perpetrate the kind of hoax involved in the PGF. Patterson himself admits so - the worst person to come up with a bigfoot film (paraphrasing Roger).

Bob Heironimus, on the other hand, has no reputation that way at all. People take him as an honest, trustworthy person.

So naturally the thing to do is conclude bigfoot is real and that Bob Heironimus is a bad person just lying for no apparent reason at all. Roger, for once, actually did society a great favor here by recording this incredible creature science and all humanity has overlooked for thousands of years.

 

[rockinkt]

I’ll quote from the Wikipedia entry on the Patterson film I originally cited:


A more moderate version of their opinion [when interviewed by a different person] was,

Wikipedia (based on the Hunter and Dahinden book) credits Dale Sheets as being “head of the Documentary Film Department.” Are you sure he wasn’t? And it wasn’t just Dale Sheets’s opinion, it was also that of “unnamed technicians.”
The Wikipedia entry indicated he’d been promoted to an executive position, so no “period”:

If he was only a cartoon animator, then you have a point. But he might have had some knowledge of animatronics from being in contact with people in that position and from being an executive. Presumably he thought he did or he wouldn’t have opined on the matter.

That opinion was issued in 1969. Three years later, a second visit to Disney was made, this time by Peter Byrne:

•

1. At Universal, we don’t know for sure yet that Dale Sheets was just “a marketing executive turned agent.” And it wasn’t just his opinion, it was that of “unnamed technicians in the special effects department.”

2. At Disney, we don’t know for sure yet that Peterson was “just an animator”; Wikipedia cites a source who says he was an executive. And it wasn’t just his opinion, it was that (three years later) of “Disney's chief of animation and four assistants.”
So there’s your expertise.

Are you serious? I asked you for details - not a bunch of nonsense about "unnamed technicians" and what someone "might" know.

You have produced absolutely no evidence that either of the two men had any experience or specific knowledge and expertise in the field of special effects, fur suit-making and/or make-up in the motion picture industry.

You have produced absolutely no evidence that any of the other people supposedly interviewed by the cheerleaders of Bigfoot had any specific knowledge and expertise in the field of special effects, fur suit-making and/or make-up in the movie industry.

It makes me laugh out loud to see you ask kitakaze for the specific names of the witnesses that saw Heironimus with his suit yet - on the other hand - you demand that others take the word of unnamed "technicians" supposedly interviewed by Green or Byrne.

A total and utter fail Roger. A man interested in the truth would immediately stop using this completely discredited "evidence" in any further debate.

 

[Roger Knights]

Pugilism isn't anti-social. It is not listed in any diagnostic guide to antisocial personality disorders.

I didn't say pugilism was antisocial. My index was arranged in order from positive to negative. Pugilistic was item 8 in a 22-item list. The two items before that referred to his being likable & exciting, and to his dominating personality.

In response to Parcher's apparent upset over there being more positive features in my index, I wrote:

Anyway, some of the positive categories can be turned into negatives. His charm and dominating features, and his pugilism, can be characterized as sociopathic.

IOW, if some Patterson-skeptic wanted to, and someone probably already has, he could point out that many sociopaths are exciting, dominating, and pugilistic.

 

[Roger Knights]

I'm here. Fire away.
What you need in your volley is evidence that Bob Heironimus was hoaxing in the Yakima Valley and to refute evidence that Roger Patterson was hoaxing in the Yakima Valley.
I suggest you review the "Hoaxing of Jerry Merritt" thread at the BFF.

Thanks for that lead—it’s very relevant. But I note, having just visited it, that that thread is 57 pages long, and pretty meaty! I won’t be able to respond today (Monday), as I’d promised. I’ll need another week.

PS: I'm up to page 2 and so far I think you're right about RP's hoaxing Merritt, and about his motives.

You have already incorrectly placed Gary Record as being out of Yakima in 1967 when he was one of the main witnesses of the Idle Hour showing of the suit when Heironimus returned to Yakima from Bluff Creek.

You don’t know that for a fact; you only know what Gary Record told you—and he might have had a motive to change his story from a true one to a false one. I.e., not to stab Bob in the back, as he might have seen it, or not to get in Bob’s bad graces.

Did you ask him if he’d been interviewed by me?
Did you ask him what he’d said to me?
Did you ask him if I’d misrepresented what he’d said?

I’d like to know more details of that sort.