Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Roger Knights]

Originally Posted by Roger Knights
Here's the article (32 pages) I promised Kit in which I argue that Heironimus was a Yakima-area Bigfoot hoaxer before the PGF. (I've beat the deadline by 7 minutes.)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

It is beyond me how you can use that as an argument that the PGF wasn't a hoax, and that BH wasn't in the suit for the PGF....

Citation needed. I didn’t use it for that purpose. I used it to respond to Kitakaze’s challenge:

I'm here. Fire away.
What you need in your volley is evidence that Bob Heironimus was hoaxing in the Yakima Valley . . . .

... and that BH wasn't in the suit for the PGF....

See the next comment, where Heironimus denies stumbling, contradicting what is on the film.

 

[Roger Knights]

If I've been following along correctly, I think Roger has reported that Bob H. does not remember bending over in the suit that day. . . . .

He didn’t just fail to remember bending, he vociferously denied it. (Unfortunately, I failed to quote enough of Heironimus’s statements. This is why I try to err on the side of lengthiness in my posts. If I don’t spell things out, readers can form the wrong impression.)

Tom Biscardi—By the way, at any point in time when you were out there, did you ever stumble and fall with the suit on?
Heironimus—No! Never! Uh-uh.
—Tom Biscardi Internet radio interview, section 12-AA, March 14, 2007
Heironimus—I never stumbled once, I never drug my feet once.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M.K. Davis—No, this is early in the filming, it’s right when he first starts the filming.
Heironimus—“Like I said, I was standing over there, I wasn’t crouched down—”
Tom Biscardi—No, no, no. He’s got you standing here.
Heironimus—Right. And I never stumbled, I never took off, you know, across town, I just started walking.
—Tom Biscardi Internet radio interview, section 12-OO, March 14, 2007

Human beings, of course, remember such tiny details during events that occurred over 40 years ago. The mind is an incorruptible repository of precise memories capable of being recalled exactly decades later. It is known.

It’s not a tiny detail. It’s a severe stumble and a decided fall. It wasn’t in the script. Heironimus would remember it; and he’d remember Patterson expostulating with him about it. In the final, brown-tinted frame, Patty is leaning 75 degrees, per my SWAG. The skin over her butt is stretched so much that the hair un-bunches and the butt appears white in the sunlight. M.K. Davis told me that at that rate of fall the next frame would have her bend noticeably farther (if Patterson hadn’t taken his finger off the trigger). Gimlin said she fell to her elbows; these frames confirm it.

Ergo, Bob H. could not be in the suit. Because here's a blurry picture where you can kind of see Patty bending over maybe!

Strawman.

In the pics Roger has kindly provided, I can sort of see what he means. Patty appears to be slanting to the right compared to the previous frame, where "she" is fully upright.

I’ve added two pairs of slanted lines to a couple of the early frames to help others see this:

And here is the frame after (or in between) those two; it’s larger than prior displays of it here, and annotated to point out the head, butt crack, and elbow.

But that may be a consequence of the camera streaking left and thus distorting the image.

There is increasing blurring in every frame, but I don’t see any left/right streaking.

PS: The case could be argued the other way: A Bigfoot wouldn’t be expected to trip over its own feet, but a novice mime in a clown-foot costume might.

 

[Roger Knights]

Sooooo....Roger your submitting rebuttals to posts on BFF in a non-existent debate with Kit here on ISF....okey dokey!

Kit has just shown up and the debate will be existent shortly. I invited him here, rather than to BFF, because here he won’t get peppered with nasty cracks and off-topic challenges.

 

[Resume]

I’ve added two pairs of slanted lines to a couple of the early frames to help others see this . . .

To my eyes, the frames look identical save for the second looking more blurry and washed out.

 

[GT/CS]

You're cheating by using that side sketch. How about showing us Patty's bend in the film image you posted.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

You're cheating by using that side sketch. How about showing us Patty's bend in the film image you posted.

He obviously can't do that, because it's non-existent, much like our old mate Bigfoot. Rinse and Repeat Roger is at it again, lol.

 

[Vortigern99]

Conjecturing on what a given person would or would not remember of an event that occurred 40+ years ago is an exercise in futility. Seizing on the one conclusion that supports one's predetermined belief is the very definition of confirmation bias.

One cannot definitively assert what a person would or would not recall from a given event. Attempting to do so reveals the extent of one's biases.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Conjecturing on what a given person would or would not remember of an event that occurred 40+ years ago is an exercise in futility. Seizing on the one conclusion that supports one's predetermined belief is the very definition of confirmation bias.

One cannot definitively assert what a person would or would not recall from a given event. Attempting to do so reveals the extent of one's biases.

The funny thing about Roger is that he claimed to be "bothered" by certain aspects of the PGF, such as the Gemora butt-pad, but instead of continuing down that line of thinking, he then goes on to attempt to make out like Patty is doing something unique in bending over, despite the fact that there is no image whatsoever that shows such a bend.

If you're admittedly ignoring a potential smoking gun (Gemora butt-pad) and offering some obviously nonsensical theory about Patty being bent over by presenting a completely vague and blurred image, then it shows that you're essentially only here to try and fly the flag of belief.

He claims that he's not here to show that the PGF is real, and says he doesn't know if it is, but then spends most of his time basically trying to prove that it is real, while pretending to be on the fence.

He suggested we ignore the butt-pad, despite admitting to being bothered by it earlier.

Frankly, this isn't an honest guy, imo. Odd for a fella who routinely cries "disingenuous!" at everything he deems to be challenging.

 

[Roger Knights]

Why are these pictures so small? The first one is close to decent, but then they become tiny cropped images. Davis produced these. There's no good reason why they can't all be the same size. I suspect nefarious intent. He is trying to trick the audience. It's his standard method.

Below is one that I’ve doubled in size and “sharpened” a bit in PhootoShop. The reason for the small size of what I got from M.K. Davis, I suspect, is that larger versions become pixilted and blocky. Small versions can be examined with a magnifying glass.

In the context of the lead-in frames, what’s in the image are, from the top, a dark brown smudge of a head and neck, set above and between two stretched-white butt cheeks, each topping the upper half of a pair of thighs. The butt crack is 90% hidden by the blurring. On both sides of the torso and butt cheeks are arms—the right one is more visible than the left, as would be expected from Patty’s angle of retreat.

PS: From the short distance the head is above the butt—maybe a foot—she was leaning forward at maybe a 75-degree angle.

M.K. Davis rescued this frame from preceding, much blurrier frames. It is to his credit that he did so.

 

[Vortigern99]

Below is one that I’ve doubled in size and “sharpened” a bit in PhootoShop. The reason for the small size of what I got from M.K. Davis, I suspect, is that larger versions become pixilted and blocky. Small versions can be examined with a magnifying glass.

[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20Patty%20Bending/Pattys%20butt%20zoom%20out%202x_zpsuxd44bwn.jpg[/qimg]

In the context of the lead-in frames, what’s in the image are, from the top, a dark brown smudge of a head and neck, set above and between two stretched-white butt cheeks, each topping the upper half of a pair of thighs. The butt crack is 90% hidden by the blurring. On both sides of the torso and butt cheeks are arms—the right one is more visible than the left, as would be expected from Patty’s angle of retreat.

M.K. Davis rescued this frame from preceding, much blurrier frames. It is to his credit that he did so.

And? The fallen white log is in the foreground, blocking our view of the figure's legs. What is this supposed to show?

 

[Vortigern99]

You’re right. The author, Barry Keith, should have written:
That’s what was in his mind to say—see the first paragraph of his section, “Ape Attribute #2—Long Arms.” He just needed a copy editor. Or, if it wasn’t in his mind, the claim in the second sentence above is one that can be defended by others.
You’ll need to cite more than just that one flub to prove that.
Non sequitur.

The author makes several mistakes of fact and analysis in the short section on Baker's Kong. He thus disqualifies himself from consideration as an expert, and his opinions can be dismissed as inconsequential and biased.

 

[LTC8K6]

Below is one that I’ve doubled in size and “sharpened” a bit in PhootoShop. The reason for the small size of what I got from M.K. Davis, I suspect, is that larger versions become pixilted and blocky. Small versions can be examined with a magnifying glass.

[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20Patty%20Bending/Pattys%20butt%20zoom%20out%202x_zpsuxd44bwn.jpg[/qimg]

It's astonishing to me to read about what you think you can discern in such an image.

It's also astonishing that you seem to be unaware or dismissive of the terrain the subject is walking through.

It makes me think you are too far gone to ever make it back.

The magnifying glass remark is gold, Roger! Gold!

I bet that if you showed that image to someone without any references, they would be unable to definitively describe anything in the image at all.

I can't actually discern anything at all, and I already know what the image is.

The only reason I have an idea of what it shows, and can probably accurately pick out a few items, is because I know the context.

If I pretend I am unaware of the provenance of the image, it's just a blurry image of some things I can't make out.

 

[LTC8K6]

Radio interview, November 1967.

JW-Jack Webster

JW: Now, how far did you follow her?

RP: I really didn't follow her any much further than when my camera run out of film and I knew that it was out, and Bob got on his horse and went after her then, and from that point he seen her more than I did, I never seen her again.

JW: How far were you able to follow her?

BG: I watched her until she went up the road about 300 yards, and she went around a bend in the road and that was the last I seen of her.

Funny How neither Roger nor Bob saw Patty bend over, stumble, or fall, even though they were right there with her in broad daylight.

 

[LTC8K6]

Of course, no one at the scene ever bothered to take any movies or stills of this incredible spot where the creature fell to it's elbows.

No one even mentions seeing elbow prints, which would be right there and quite unusual and unique to find. Where is Titmus' or Laverty's info on this spot?

I mean, a big heavy primate doesn't fall to it's elbows in any of that soil without making some unique prints and marks.

It's just like the supposed spot on the creek bank where the creature supposedly turned and began walking.

No documentation at all of a unique and hard to fake set of prints.

Now we have a second occurrence of a unique point in the trackway that no one seemed to notice or care about.

Those two spots would be incredibly unique, valuable to science, and harder to fake.

Too bad no one could be bothered to even notice them, let alone snap even one pic.

 

[LTC8K6]

Pretty descriptive, yet nothing about bending over, stumbling, or falling. You would think they would have remembered that when talking to the reporter that night.

Patterson said the creatures'(sic) head was much like a human's though considerably more slanted and with a large forehead and broad, wide nostrils.

"It's arms hung almost to its knees and when it walked, the arms swung at its sides."

PATTERSON said he is very much certain the creature was female "because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved." The creature had what he described as silvery brown hair all over its body except on its face around the nose and cheeks. The hair was two to four inches long and of a light tint on top with a deeper color underneath.

"She never made a sound. She wasn't hostile to us, but we don't think she was afraid of us either. She acted like she didn't want anything to do with us if she could avoid it." Patterson said the creature had an ambling gait as it made off over the some 200 yards he had it in sight. He said he lost sight of the creature, but Gimlin caught a brief glimpse of it afterward.

"But she stunk, like did you ever let in a dog out of the rain and he smelled like he'd been rolling in something dead. Her odor didn't last long where she'd been."

 

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Roger: 10 consecutive verbose posts. Blurred images of the PGF.

Munns 2.0

 

[Roger Knights]

To my eyes, the frames look identical save for the second looking more blurry and washed out.

Look at the tree to the left of the Bigfoot—the white, upright shaft. There’s more of it visible alongside Patty in the second image, because Patty is moving partly to the right.

It’s natural that a frame shot only 1/16 of a second after the preceding one would be very similar, but the angle of lean is greater in the second one. (Maybe the angled lines I drew hurt more than help, for you. If so, try to ignore them.)

The tree can be seen a few feet to the left of Patty in the final, brown-tinted frame, indicating the passage of at least half a second.

 

[Roger Knights]

You're cheating by using that side sketch. How about showing us Patty's bend in the film image you posted.

Explaining this takes us back through several comments-and-responses.

#1

Patterson told BH to walk like an ape so he slouched. Is that what you refer to as bending?

Patty is only slightly slouched in her ordinary walk. Mostly it is her head and neck that are bent noticeably—her torso is bent about 10 degrees, per my SWAG. The bend in the last image above is about 75 degrees—her head is less than a foot above her butt.
---------
#2

Nnnn no.

You’re right. I measured the angle on Figure B in Krantz’s Bigfoot / Sasquatch Evidence, page 113. The forward lean of the torso, measured along the back, is 20 degrees and the forward lean of the back of the neck is 35 degrees.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
There is no profile view like this in the film, but I assume Krantz was able, from his measurements of many frames, to figure out how much she was leaning and to rotate her into this position without too much error.

-----------
#3
(A comment I made accompanying my posting of some images☺
The last two “moonshot” frames of Patty derives their authenticity from the three frames shown here preceding them, in which her back is first upright (for her—i.e.,, already 20-degrees leaning forward), then bends more in each of the next four frames until she’s about 75 degrees bent forward and her head—a brown smudge—is only about a foot higher than her butt.
-------------
#4

Plus, how can you tell Patty is slouched over 20 degrees when we're viewing her from the back? Please show graphically.

I wrtote this to Resume:

I measured the angle on Figure B in Krantz’s Bigfoot / Sasquatch Evidence, page 113. The forward lean of the torso, measured along the back, is 20 degrees and the forward lean of the back of the neck is 35 degrees.

Here’s the scanned-in image; I used my swing-arm protractor to measure the lean:
--------------
#5

You're cheating by using that side sketch. How about showing us Patty's bend in the film image you posted.

---------------

No, I wasn’t cheating. I was responding to your request in #4, “how can you tell Patty is slouched over 20 degrees when we're viewing her from the back? Please show graphically.”

My response in #4 was a posting of Krantz’s sketch, which I’d only described in words before. I’d described it in words before in response to Resume’s implied criticism in #2 that my initial 10-degree estimate “in her ordinary walk” was wrong.

So all of this exchange up to this point was about the degree of forward lean in ”her ordinary walk.” It was not about “Patty's bend in the film image you posted.” I didn’t imply that I or anyone had calculated a 20-degree lean from those particular film images.

PS: When it came to my estimates of Patty’s bending in these particular images, I usually used words indicating I was just guesstimating. I didn’t imply I had any other basis for the numbers I used than that.

PS: “Please show graphically.” You mean with lines? If I’d done that, someone else would grouse about them.

Implicitly, I was suggesting that this amount should not be counted as extraordinary when estimating Patty’s bending in the frames from the end of walk-phase #1 that I posted. I was doing the opposite of “cheating” thereby.
************

BTW, I just realized the difference between a slouch and a crouch, which has a bearing on whether Patty was following Patterson’s directions:

Patterson told BH to walk like an ape so he slouched. Is that what you refer to as bending?

Here’s what Heironimus said Patterson said: “Crouch down a little bit more like a gorilla.” (TMoB, p. 346)

A slouch suggests a slumped or bending torso; a crouch suggests bending the legs, as in the crouched walk Groucho Marx sometimes used. So I don’t think Patty’s torso’s forward slump or slouch or bend can be attributed to Patterson’s directions.

 

[Roger Knights]

Conjecturing on what a given person would or would not remember of an event that occurred 40+ years ago is an exercise in futility. Seizing on the one conclusion that supports one's predetermined belief is the very definition of confirmation bias.

One cannot definitively assert what a person would or would not recall from a given event. Attempting to do so reveals the extent of one's biases.

It depends on the circumstances. Experts in memory have determined that extraordinary events can burn themselves into memory and be recalled with startling fidelity much later.

If you are alluding to Heironimus’s memory of his stumbling (or not), in an extraordinary event that he turned over in his mind regularly thereafter, I was not “conjecturing”; he emphatically claims he has a perfect memory og not stumbling.

If you are making a more general point, it’s true that “One cannot definitively assert what a person would or would not recall from a given event.” But I’ve never (I hope) done that. I’ve used (e.g., in my article on Heironimus’s apesuit before 10/67) probabilistic words like “likely.” When reconstructing historical events in which facts are scarce and/or in dispute, establishing degrees of likelihood or plausibility is all that can be done. So there’s nothing wrong with that.

Please tell me if you had any specific instance of mine in mind when you wrote, “Seizing on the one conclusion that supports one's predetermined belief is the very definition of confirmation bias.”

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

It depends on the circumstances. Experts in memory have determined that extraordinary events can burn themselves into memory and be recalled with startling fidelity much later.

If you are alluding to Heironimus’s memory of his stumbling (or not), in an extraordinary event that he turned over in his mind regularly thereafter, I was not “conjecturing”; he emphatically claims he has a perfect memory og not stumbling.

If you are making a more general point, it’s true that “One cannot definitively assert what a person would or would not recall from a given event.” But I’ve never (I hope) done that. I’ve used (e.g., in my article on Heironimus’s apesuit before 10/67) probabilistic words like “likely.” When reconstructing historical events in which facts are scarce and/or in dispute, establishing degrees of likelihood or plausibility is all that can be done. So there’s nothing wrong with that.

Please tell me if you had any specific instance of mine in mind when you wrote, “Seizing on the one conclusion that supports one's predetermined belief is the very definition of confirmation bias.”

It's much funnier when you read this post and consider the fact that P&G got pretty much everything they said wrong and essentially contradicted each other. They didn't even remember whether Roger was thrown from the horse, landed beneath the horse, or woke up next to a horse in Thailand. I guess Roger prefers to ignore that, much like he ignores the admittedly "troubling" Gemora butt that Patty is sporting.