Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Roger Knights]

The three Idle Hour suit witnesses that I interviewed in addition to Bob Heironimus were Howard Heironimus, Gary Record and Bernard Hammermeister, all about six years ago. Howard Heironimus confirmed that none of the other Heironimus brothers were present and none had any involvement with Patterson accept for him and Bob. Russ Bohannon was not one of the suit witnesses.

It’s too bad that you don’t know either, but I’m glad to know for sure who the three are, and that Bohannon isn’t one of the unknowns.

I assume Howard vouches for the presence of the other two witnesses (please confirm). Does Hammermeister vouch for the presence of Record and vice versa? (Please confirm or deny.) From the way Heironimus put it in one of his interviews, it sounded as though the suit display was a short-lived, by-invitation affair, so there’s a good chance they might have seen each other:

Heironimus—when I got back from down there with the suit in the car I went up to the local water hole where all those guys hang out around here and I showed six guys.
—Second XZone interview, section 13-N, August 6, 2007

I would need to speak with Bob again to get the names of every person present, but I'm not sure that he may even recall now.

He probably recalls at least one name. As for the other two, maybe Howard or Glenda or Michael Heironimus or Jim Gosney would know. Or Hammermeister or Record. I guess we can assume that at least one of the unknown three has passed on.

 

[Roger Knights]

You want to find evidence of Heironimus participating in hoaxing in Yakima when all the witnesses tie him to a single event and you're recognizing that Jerry Merritt was in fact hoaxed multiple times at his own home and the one with the clear motive and ability to do that was Roger Patterson.

My article disputes in detail your statement that “all the witnesses tie Heironimus to a single event” (the supposed October 20, 1967, suit display). It devotes 11 pages (19–29) specifically to criticism of your claim, and of other related claims you’ve made.

This is a transcript from my interview with Gary Record. Your name was not brought up in the conversation...

That’s another thing I’m glad you’ve nailed down. I wasn’t sure from reading the transcript whether you’d brought up my earlier interview outside of what you posted in the transcript.

 

[Roger Knights]

The best response doesn't need 32 pages. It doesn't need three paragraphs.

Wrong.

Roger asserts BH was a hoaxer. He accepts Patterson was a hoaxer.

OK so far.

Jerry Merritt being hoaxed down the street from Patterson is a fact. He, his wife, his son did not make it up. It's history. Patterson relied on Merritt for his Hollywood connections, the use of his Dry Gulch attraction, and the use of his home.

I don’t deny it. (BTW, what do you think of my idea that Patterson & Merritt might have colluded to flummox his wife (and son, as a by-product)?)

Heironimus involved in hoaxing ,. . .

Good. When? The title of my article is, “Was there a Heironimus apesuit BEFORE 10/67?” That was your challenge to me. My article’s answer is Yes.

. . . Patterson involved in hoaxing, Patterson goes to Bluff Creek with Heironimus' horse.

Off topic (i.e., Did Heironimus hoax in Yakima before 10/67?). Not proof of Heironimus’s being in the suit. Outweighed by Heironimus’s false statements about what’s where in California and about other California-related facts.

(Speaking of which, do you accept the claim of Long, and later of Heironimus, that the meetup gas station was the Bluff Creek Company Store? (TMoB pp. 438–41))

PS: If you want to drop the topic about whether Heironimus was a Bigfoot-hoaxer in Yakima, or anyway cut it short, and move on to working through your 26-point “alphabet soup” comment, that’s OK with me.

 

[Resume]

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.

The dark splotches on the suit at the at the ass and neck region are at the same spots in both frames. Of course even if the bend were as you're alluding, it wouldn't be all that difficult for a guy in a suit. Which this is.

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

Yes, it's pretty clear that Roger and Bob didn't have the incident "burned" into their memory, since they could scarcely tell the same story twice in the days and weeks right after the event.

 

[Roger Knights]

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

There’s no log in the foreground. It's a "berm" (or embankment), as Parcher stated. The log comes into view in the second walk phase, later. Patterson hadn’t even crossed the creek yet. He was shooting over the top of a 3-foot high embankment (per Jim McClarin in an e-mail to me). So as Patty moved farther from him, her lower body naturally became more concealed. (Parcher pointed this out already—weren’t you paying attention?)

Cervelo approvingly quoted Vortinger99’s erroneous comment and added:

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Moderated content redacted.

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Off-topic content removed.

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Moderated content redacted.

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Off-topic content removed.

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

I explained that already:

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.

 

[Roger Knights]

The dark splotches on the suit at the at the ass and neck region are at the same spots in both frames.

As one would expect in two frames 1/16 of a second apart. That they are not the same frames is proven by the fact that Patty has moved to the right in the second frame, exposing more of the tree trunk to her left.

Of course even if the bend were as you're alluding, it wouldn't be all that difficult for a guy in a suit.

Correct. But the topic of this thread is Heironimus, who said he didn't stumble (or even crouch), not just “a guy in a suit.” I’m not disputing that possibility; nor, here, defending the authenticity of the PGF. (Except when I occasionally succumb to temptation and take the bait in a comment.)

 

[John Nowak]

So to sum it up:

Not only has Roger Knights failed to demonstrate that Heironimus stumbled in the PGF, but even if he did, it has no significance because it's not unreasonable he'd forget 40 years later.

 

[Roger Knights]

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?

Titmus was at the site within nine days. He likely hadn’t heard Gimlin’s claim that Patty had fallen to her elbows. (I have no idea when Gimlin provided that detail—it might have been years later.) If Titmus saw unusual marks, he likely wouldn’t have realized what they were, and put them out of his mind as something inexplicable.

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.

Titmus said somewhere that he noticed tracks wandering around in the creekbed. So he at least noticed them. As for not taking photos, this was the guy who forgot to bring a tape measure. He mightn’t have brought enough film to photograph what he considered to be borderline images, such as smudges on the ground.

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.

Patterson might have filmed them on his second reel, but he didn’t have time to do it on October 20. He had to leave to get the first reel sent off to Yakima before the post office closed. The torrential rain that night prevented him from being able to film that spot the next day.

He might have filmed the whole trackway then—he likely had more than two minute’s worth of film in his camera. As for visitors in 1968, the trackway would have been much less sharp, with the fainter tracks already barely visible, and odd spots in it mightn’t have attracted much notice—especially if the visitors weren’t aware of Gimlin’s statement that she fell.

The sand at Bluff Creek isn’t ordinary beach sand that easily takes an impression of something pressed straight down into it. It’s shale sand (fractured rock) that is made of little platelets, not little balls that easily glide aside for one another. (It’s the “black sand,” or “paydirt,” of the 49ers.) It requires a sliding force to dig into shale sand and make a strong impression.

The mark Patty made, if she broke her fall into it with her forearms, wouldn’t have been nearly as deep as one made in beach sand.

 

[William Parcher]

I think that if Patty fell to her elbows or knees that she would be totally hidden behind that sand berm. She would drop out of view.

 

[Vortigern99]

There’s no log in the foreground. It's a "berm" (or embankment), as Parcher stated. The log comes into view in the second walk phase, later. Patterson hadn’t even crossed the creek yet. He was shooting over the top of a 3-foot high embankment (per Jim McClarin in an e-mail to me). So as Patty moved farther from him, her lower body naturally became more concealed. (Parcher pointed this out already—weren’t you paying attention?)
Cervelo approvingly quoted Vortinger99’s erroneous comment and added:
Sayonara, Cervelo; you’ve made it to my Ignore list.
Adios, GT/CS. You too are off my screen.
I explained that already:

Poisoning the well. The white foreground object -- which you name a berm -- is blocking our view of Patty's lower body. I'm asking you what the image is intended to demonstrate, not merely from a visual perspective, but conceptually. What do you think it proves?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Yes, it's pretty clear that Roger and Bob didn't have the incident "burned" into their memory, since they could scarcely tell the same story twice in the days and weeks right after the event.

Exactly, but Roger Knights is content to let the errors and blunders of P&G (of which there are many more than Bob H) slip, and he admittedly just focuses on the story of Bob H, he's not attempting to tell us that the PGF is real, he's just trying to tell us that it wasn't a suit, because suits don't bend or have bulging calf-muscles.

 

[LTC8K6]

Exactly, but Roger Knights is content to let the errors and blunders of P&G (of which there are many more than Bob H) slip, and he admittedly just focuses on the story of Bob H, he's not attempting to tell us that the PGF is real, he's just trying to tell us that it wasn't a suit, because suits don't bend or have bulging calf-muscles.

Well, Roger really can't get away with that in the real world.

If he's going to scrutinize BH's story, then he has to scrutinize RP and BG's stories with at least equal fervor.

He just looks silly if he doesn't, as we've seen before with people trying to support the PGF.

Personally, I have never believed BH's story, and have always maintained that as skeptics, we don't really need to figure out who wore the suit.

But I don't mind tossing it about.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Well, Roger really can't get away with that in the real world.

If he's going to scrutinize BH's story, then he has to scrutinize RP and BG's stories with at least equal fervor.

He just looks silly if he doesn't, as we've seen before with people trying to support the PGF.

Personally, I have never believed BH's story, and have always maintained that as skeptics, we don't really need to figure out who wore the suit.

But I don't mind tossing it about.

I actually couldn't agree more, tbh. I'm not a huge supporter of Bob H. But then again, I don't necessarily deny it was him, I'm just not at all convinced, and don't really need to be. I do maintain that he's the best candidate, since there are no others, (that we know about) but again, that doesn't mean it was him.

I've taken flack for it before, and I'm sure to take flack for it again, but I don't think anything rises or falls with Bob H.

Even if you eliminated Bob successfully, Patty would still only ever be a bloke in a monkey suit.

 

[LTC8K6]

Titmus was at the site within nine days. He likely hadn’t heard Gimlin’s claim that Patty had fallen to her elbows. (I have no idea when Gimlin provided that detail—it might have been years later.) If Titmus saw unusual marks, he likely wouldn’t have realized what they were, and put them out of his mind as something inexplicable.



Titmus said somewhere that he noticed tracks wandering around in the creekbed. So he at least noticed them. As for not taking photos, this was the guy who forgot to bring a tape measure. He mightn’t have brought enough film to photograph what he considered to be borderline images, such as smudges on the ground.



Patterson might have filmed them on his second reel, but he didn’t have time to do it on October 20. He had to leave to get the first reel sent off to Yakima before the post office closed. The torrential rain that night prevented him from being able to film that spot the next day.

He might have filmed the whole trackway then—he likely had more than two minute’s worth of film in his camera. As for visitors in 1968, the trackway would have been much less sharp, with the fainter tracks already barely visible, and odd spots in it mightn’t have attracted much notice—especially if the visitors weren’t aware of Gimlin’s statement that she fell.

The sand at Bluff Creek isn’t ordinary beach sand that easily takes an impression of something pressed straight down into it. It’s shale sand (fractured rock) that is made of little platelets, not little balls that easily glide aside for one another. (It’s the “black sand,” or “paydirt,” of the 49ers.) It requires a sliding force to dig into shale sand and make a strong impression.

The mark Patty made, if she broke her fall into it with her forearms, wouldn’t have been nearly as deep as one made in beach sand.

"Titmus said somewhere" is not valid data though. IIRC he was unable to recognize horse crap and liked to collect used tampons from sleazy truck stops. I'm not sure Titmus ever told a straight story in his life.

What fool would catch themselves with their forearms? Is this more "Patty Anatomy 101" again? When I'm about to face-plant, I extend my hands which lets my arms fold to act as shock absorbers. Or was Patty sick again and couldn't catch herself?

Sliding force? Then what the heck did Laverty photograph and what the heck did Gimlin jump off a stump for? Why try to match the 3-1/2 inch deep tracks of Patty if the soil doesn't take prints easily?

Gimlin is the one who took the re-loaded camera and went to film Patty's trackway, not Roger. That's according to Gimlin though, so maybe you don't want to consider it?

With the very heavy flooding that night, described by Gimlin, how did Titmus even find anything at all?

Is that Twilight Zone music I hear?
Is there a totally different PGF film and story that I have missed for the last forever?

But really, this is just endless re-hashing and attempted re-mixing.

It's rather silly how few want to talk about what Roger and Bob actually said right after the supposed events.

 

[Roger Knights]

Here’s one of the images I posted earlier, but doubled in size for easier examination, and annotated with text boxes and arrows. I should have done this in the first place. It shows Patty leaning, with her butt and thigh-tops in view:

The left butt has a spot on it—some sort of imperfection in the film, I suppose. Both butt cheeks are white—this is what identifies them as a landmark in the subsequent “tiny cropped images.” In this image, their identity is validated by the butt crack between them.

The right arm is distinct, to the right of the right butt cheek—it’s hanging down from the shoulder,perhaps on its forward swing, with a substantial, black gap between it and the torso. I’ve pointed out the elbow.

Because the left arm is not dangling as much (perhaps it was on its backswing), its back is visible alongside the torso. The top of the right arm is the top of the shoulder-line. The shoulder-line slants upward —as it does in other images.

The head sits atop it, a light-colored blob, turned sideways to the right. An eye is where it should be, given that the "mane" of hair is on the left, indicating the head is turned to the right. Below it, the jaw projects forward, as it does on Patty. (This is something that is not well known, because the standard 35-degree forward lean of her neck has the effect of making the jaw less salient.)

An apparent long “mane” or pony tail of hair emerges from the back of the head and trails down to about the top of the armpit level. This puzzling apparent mane appears on most images of Patty.

There appears to be a pronounced forward lean to the torso—at least 45 degrees.

There is a large relative distance between the head and the butt—much larger than in the brown-tined image below. That smaller gap is indicative of a greater forward lean to the torso—maybe 75 degrees or more. But Parcher says:

If you look at the first and largest image you see that the sand berm increases in height towards the right side of the frame. Patty is walking in that direction. She is actually walking both away from the camera and to the right. In that first image her legs are obscured from view by that berm. With each subsequent frame more of her lower body gets concealed.

Wrong. Here are very early frames shot before Patterson got down into the creekbed. There is no berm in view. In the upper image, the substantial height of the embankment above the water can be seen.

Parcher’s “berm” (and Vortigern99’s “log”) is actually the upper edge of the three-foot-high embankment of the creek. Patterson apparently knelt against it to steady his camera, putting its lens slightly below the top of the embankment. In the brown-tinted “final” image the edge of the embankment levels out—actually it turns slightly downward.

Eventually her butt becomes concealed behind the berm. At that point all that is visible is the back and the head. This is what we see in the tiny cropped images. Patty hasn't bent over or fallen down. She's still walking upright but much of her body is hidden behind the sand berm. More gets hidden with each step she takes.

Wishful thinking. Take a look below:

Without the context of preceding frames, and the tree on the left, anchoring the creature to the preceding frames, this would be a blobsquatch. However, they exist, so this frame is a continuation of what was seen before. The white-tinted butt, shining in the sun from being stretched even more than in the first image, is a landmark that anchors the rest of the body to what is seen in the first image in this comment.

Patterson probably realized that she was soon to be completely hidden so he stopped and shifted position.

Correct. Patterson next ran out of the creek, swinging his camera in one hand, with the trigger apparently in its locked-down position, to close the distance to his target.

Hmm . . . OTOH, if it was a hoax, Patterson might have realized, as soon as the first image above, that Heironimus had tripped in his clown feet, so he intentionally blurred all the succeeding frames except, by accident, this one (above), and took his finger off the trigger. He thereby hoped the tripping would not be noticed. If there had been a trip, he’d have had strong words with the mime afterwards about his stumble—something Heironimus didn’t report, indicating he wasn’t there, and the mime was someone else.

Davis may have done these tiny croppings so that you cannot properly see the rising berm. He intentionally created an optical illusion where one should not really exist.

The berm premise is off the table, so the conclusion doesn’t follow.

Here’s a link to “The [MK] Davis Report” site, which contains lots of interesting stuff, I assume. Due to my absence from the Bigfoot scene for five hears, I haven’t yet gotten into it.
https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/

 

[Vortigern99]

Because I'm an independent thinker, I readily allow that the figure appears to be bending in the image under review.

What does this bending purport to demonstrate?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

What does this bending purport to demonstrate?

Suits from the 60s were notorious for not bending, they were known for being stiff and rigid.

Oh, wait...

Suits were perfectly capable of achieving everything that we see on display in this footage of a Bigfoot by a guy known for hoaxing Bigfoot-activity who was making a movie about Bigfoot who had just written a book about Bigfoot containing an account with a Bigfoot very similar to the one he ended up filming while he was making a movie about Bigfoot...go figure! But it wasn't a hoax, honestly, it was a real encounter, they just thought that the idea of finding a real-life Bigfoot wasn't nearly fascinating enough, so they then added extra juicy details about horses falling all over the place and bent stirrups and bending Bigfoots.

Roger's doing a smashing job of being on the fence, isn't he? lol.

 

[GT/CS]

His claim is that BH said he never bent over while wearing the suit. RK seems to think that if he can show Patty bends then BH wasn't Patty ergo the film is of a real Bigfoot.

 

[LTC8K6]

His claim is that BH said he never bent over while wearing the suit. RK seems to think that if he can show Patty bends then BH wasn't Patty ergo the film is of a real Bigfoot.

So if we spot him his argument, all he's done is show that BH is lying about wearing the suit, and who cares if BH is not the person in the suit?

I have never thought BH wore the suit, not since day one of hearing of BH's story, and that's a long time ago. So on that, RK and I are in agreement. BH did not play Patty for the PGF.

What difference could it possibly make that we don't know who wore the suit?