Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Roger Knights]

So to sum it up:
Not only has Roger Knights failed to demonstrate that Heironimus stumbled in the PGF, . . .

I think the long, 3-image comment I posted yesterday goes a long way to proving the creature fell or at least stumbled. (Maybe I’ll need to take that first image into Photoshop and enhance the contrast and sharpness to bring out the jawline.)

. . . but even if he did, it has no significance because it's not unreasonable he'd forget 40 years later.

The passage of time—so that’s why I’ve forgotten where I was when Kennedy was shot! (Not.)

Heironimus hasn’t claimed he’s forgotten about stumbling. He’s claiming he remembered clearly that he didn’t stumble:

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.
—Tom Biscardi Internet radio interview, section 12-OO, March 14, 2007

Here’s a 4-page Item criticizing the “failing memory” defense in more detail. http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/08/12/item-can-a-failing-memory-account-for-flubs/

 

[Roger Knights]

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

Use what? If you mean Patty’s bending, I did so in response to this comment (as I explained):

Patty might suddenly become much less than outstanding if she had to bend over, squat, pick up and carry an object or person, climb, etc.

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

Easy—because BH said emphatically that he never stumbled or fell. See my comment just above.

 

[Vortigern99]

I think the long, 3-image comment I posted yesterday goes a long way to proving the creature fell or at least stumbled. (Maybe I’ll need to take that first image into Photoshop and enhance the contrast and sharpness to bring out the jawline.)

So, the figure stumbled. What does this demonstrate? I keep asking this; you keep not responding.

Heironimus hasn’t claimed he’s forgotten about stumbling. He’s claiming he remembered clearly that he didn’t stumble:

It's the same thing. If you forget something happened to you, then you will assert when asked that it never happened. That you fail to grasp this is evidence either of dishonesty or incompetence.

Feel free to place me on Ignore along with everyone else who might be capable of persuading you through logic that your conclusions are baseless.

 

[LTC8K6]

Roger, how strict are you with witnesses in regard to remembering things correctly?

Do you think it's possible to forget details from many years ago, or to get those details mixed up?

Do you always maintain that a person is lying, and therefore not to be trusted, if they make an inaccurate statement about something that happened years ago?

What if we change the time frame, and they are making a statement about an event within the last few weeks, and they are inconsistent?

Or in short, do you hold all those who speak about the PGF to the same standard of accuracy regarding telling their version of events?

Mind you, I agree with you about BH, and this is not a new position for me.

I think you are using different standards with different witnesses.

 

[Roger Knights]

Any evidence of Bob H. being involved in bigfoot hoaxing prior to the PGF would seem like fairly compelling evidence that he was involved in bigfoot hoaxing during the PGF.

“compelling evidence”? C’mon. Is that critical thinking? His hoaxing is grounds for suspicion, that’s all.

Funnily enough, “compelling” is what his acquaintances in Yakima thought. Here’s a passage from my online Item “Was There a Heironimus Apesuit BEFORE 10/67?” (at http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/08/...0-67/item-heironimus-apesuit-before-10-67.pdf )

Heironimus initially denied involvement in the PGF to local inquirers for at least a year, according to statements he’s made in Long’s book and in interviews. (I suspect that the supposed 10/67 suit events occurred at other times and weren’t related to the PGF at all.)

I suspect that his acquaintances’ awareness of his roadside hoaxing role and his association with Patterson’s Bigfoot Documentary led to them to assume that he played the role of Patty in the PGF. The following statement suggests that they kept pestering him to admit it:

Long—I questioned Johnson further [i.e., after he’d finished talking about local events—RK] about Heironimus, but he could supply little else.

Les Johnson—Nobody can convince me otherwise—Bob Heironimus was in that suit [in the PGF]. We kind of tormented him. If you ever watch Bob walk, he’s got the same “drag” they’ve got in that picture [Patterson footage (Long’s note)] He’s got a gimp. It’s kind of a waddle . . . .
—The Making of Bigfoot, p. 48

I suspect that eventually he succumbed to “the fatal temptation to swank” and “confessed” to them. In time, maybe he worked himself up into half-believing it himself. And here we are.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I cannot believe that you think a witness who was convinced BH was in the suit, is evidence that he was not...

 

[HarryHenderson]

I cannot believe that you think a witness who was convinced BH was in the suit, is evidence that he was not...

I actually laughed out loud.

 

[John Nowak]

The passage of time—so that’s why I’ve forgotten where I was when Kennedy was shot! (Not.)

Because my tripping is just THAT important.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Still looks to be standing completely upright to me in that last frame. Behind a rise.

 

[Roger Knights]

Here’s a link to M.K. Davis’s stabilized footage of Patty mooning Patterson (by bending severely):

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...lip-and-the-private-parts-show-to-the-camera/

 

[Roger Knights]

Here’s a link to M.K. Davis’s stabilized footage of Patty mooning Patterson (by bending severely):

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...lip-and-the-private-parts-show-to-the-camera/

Clicking on the image after the GIF has run will give it to you in slow motion and at a larger size.

It does not include the blurry, brown-tinted frame in which the bend is much sharper, probably because it was preceded by as much as a second of completely blurred frames. Or because some would cavil at it and dismiss the entire GIF on that basis.

PS: Brainwave alert: What the creature looks like she’s doing is vomiting. But that can’t be, because P&G would have collected a sample, or if they didn’t have time for that on Friday, at least would have mentioned it. Also, you’d think that subsequent site visitors would have found it—unless it got washed away by the heavy rain. Another puzzler, maybe.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Here’s a link to M.K. Davis’s stabilized footage of Patty mooning Patterson (by bending severely):

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...lip-and-the-private-parts-show-to-the-camera/

Uh...wow. Thanks I guess.
The Macro shot of Patty's alleged corn port made my day.

With stabilization the viewer gets a surprise when the Bigfoot stumbles forward and the rear shows to the camera and the private parts show. Medical people have speculated that the view shows hemorrhoids, possibly from recent child birth.

Preparation Heironimus

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Here’s a link to M.K. Davis’s stabilized footage of Patty mooning Patterson (by bending severely):

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...lip-and-the-private-parts-show-to-the-camera/

I think your mind is bending severely, Roger.

 

[Roger Knights]

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.

Your “several” is actually, by my count, one mistake, which you pointed out: “The suit is absolutely and intentionally not "as anatomically correct as possible." He should have written, “The arms were as anatomically correct as possible." (“Arms” were in the heading line for this section of his article, so presumably that’s what he was attempting to address, though he misspoke.) I see his looseness with language as the result of not being self-critical when writing by cutting down on one’s emotion-driven tendency to make sweeping claims.

I don’t see it as an indication that he was unaware that Kong had a flat belly and long, human-like legs. A minute spent googling for Rick Baker Kong 1976 in the Image section brought me to a couple of pix of the manlike Kong you described. The movie is probably rentable on Amazon for $2 or $3. It’s an uncharitable assumption that he would have made such a gross blunder by failing to do elementary checking like that. Thus I don’t think it’s right to conclude that “his opinions can be dismissed as inconsequential and biased.”

 

[Roger Knights]

Because my tripping is just THAT important.

You made a sweeping statement that needed to be qualified (by the fact that “memorable” events are often remembered):

. . . but even if he did, it has no significance because it's not unreasonable he'd forget 40 years later.

My little quip about remembering the Kennedy assassination did that qualifying, implicitly.

I think that a multi-second stumble and bend would have been memorable to Heironimus, because it (presumably) wasn’t in the script and Patterson would have been annoyed, because it would give critics an opening to say, “look, the mime tripped over his clown feet.” (IF that’s what happened, which is a possibility, the mime wasn’t Heironimus.) That annoyance would have led to Patterson’s being harsh afterwards. I’ve written to Vornigern99 the following:

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.

(BTW, I no longer believe there was “a decided fall.” I think it was more likely either “a severe stumble” that took several steps to recover from, or a leaning forward to retch or try to. In that event, her hands might have reached down to steady her on the ground.)
(Incidentally, I haven’t been able to locate, by Googling, anything about Gimlin saying that she fell to her elbows. And none of the Bigfooters I’ve e-mailed can recall it either. But that’s a good thing, for my argument that she’s bending, because now there’s a reason there was no inexplicable ignoring of the marks a fall would have left on the ground.)

Heironimus has already told us of many details of his filmsite walk and what happened just before and after it. E.g., the time of day (between 11 and 12), being suited-up, going to the starting point, being given the signal, doing two lookbacks, hearing “cut!” jumping in a hole, sweating, yelling for help, being taken out of the suit by P&G as they rode up on horseback, riding back doubled up, the snow-white sand that was easily mashable (-; etc.

There’s nothing remarkable about his remembering those things, because it was a memorable event. He had had it brought to mind every time someone asked him if he’d been the mime, or when he resentfully wondered when he was going to get paid, or when he saw a replay of the PGF on TV. He told it in detail (apparently) to Jim Gosney starting in 1981. So there’s nothing remarkable in his emphatically remembering that he didn’t stumble.

Bear in mind, when he was asked about this on the Tom Biscardi interview, he didn’t say he didn’t remember. Implying that that was what he did say is a mistake. I posted the words he used upthread: “Heironimus—I never stumbled once,.”

 

[William Parcher]

Here’s a link to M.K. Davis’s stabilized footage of Patty mooning Patterson (by bending severely):

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...lip-and-the-private-parts-show-to-the-camera/

Thanks. Now there is no doubt in my mind that Patty is fully upright and just continuing to walk. It shows what I said it does. As she walks, more and more of her body gets concealed by the terrain. At the final moments of the scene all that remains visible is her back and head. Her butt and legs are completely hidden behind the sand berm. It's also additionally possible that the ground she is walking on is not flat and level. She may be walking "downhill" relative to Patterson's position.

Davis consistently declares extraordinary things about the PGF. He seems to let pareidolia be the driver for his mind as he puts aside rationality and the idea that he can be fooled by his own perceptions. His crazy ideas then get placed into a narrative and he tells a brand new story about what happened. He has already declared:

Patty has a braided ponytail.
Patty is carrying a stick.
Patty was shot by Gimlin and you can see the bullet wound.
Patty bends over and you can see hemorrhoids.

I'm probably forgetting some other crap that he has "observed".

Much of Bigfootery has abandoned MK Davis because most of his stuff is just too insane.

 

[Vortigern99]

Your “several” is actually, by my count, one mistake, which you pointed out: “The suit is absolutely and intentionally not "as anatomically correct as possible." He should have written, “The arms were as anatomically correct as possible." (“Arms” were in the heading line for this section of his article, so presumably that’s what he was attempting to address, though he misspoke.) I see his looseness with language as the result of not being self-critical when writing by cutting down on one’s emotion-driven tendency to make sweeping claims.

I don’t see it as an indication that he was unaware that Kong had a flat belly and long, human-like legs. A minute spent googling for Rick Baker Kong 1976 in the Image section brought me to a couple of pix of the manlike Kong you described. The movie is probably rentable on Amazon for $2 or $3. It’s an uncharitable assumption that he would have made such a gross blunder by failing to do elementary checking like that. Thus I don’t think it’s right to conclude that “his opinions can be dismissed as inconsequential and biased.”

Let's allow, for the sake of discussion, that Baker's Kong suit and prosthetics are deeply flawed. I mean, they aren't; it's one of the most convincing ape suits ever filmed -- but let's say they are. And...?

Let's concede that Patty bends over, even stumbles at some point. And...?

Let's say Bob H. isn't the person in the suit. And...?

What do these rhetorical concessions demonstrate about the reality of bigfoot?

 

[Roger Knights]

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.

The Jack Webster interview-passage above dealt with the end of the film; the stumble occurred at about the 20% point in the film. Gimlin stated elsewhere (in a different interview) that Patty fell or stumbled. (Or so I thought I remembered reading, although I can’t locate the quote now.)

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.

That interview-segment quotes Patterson on what he saw, but he was watching things through a small viewfinder. He just saw Patty losing height for some unknown reason. The stumble and recovery took a little over two seconds. It wouldn’t have been a significant event in itself at the time. It’s significant now because it falsifies Heironimus’s denial that he stumbled, and it counters a skeptical point that:

Patty might suddenly become much less than outstanding if she had to bend over . . .etc.

Further, mentioning a stumble in an interview would have led some of his audience think that it was a mime tripping over clown feet on an uneven surface and a clumsy costume. So that’s a reason for not mentioning it for prudence, even if the event was genuine.

 

[Roger Knights]

So if we spot him his [RK's] 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?

Well, that’s what this thread is supposedly about. Enough people are interested in it that this thread is 81 pages, and is a continuation of an even longer thread (I presume). It was the theme of Greg Long’s book. Long issued provocative challenges to disprove him that provoked me enough that I started assembling a collection of Heironimus’s contradictions, and then also of his errors and implausibilities.

Millions, maybe tens of millions, of Americans have got the idea that the guy in the suit confessed and passed two lie detector tests, so the film has been debunked. I think my work will have a big impact on that part of public opinion that bases its disbelief on Heironimus’s story, if I can debunk him. If I do debunk him, Skeptics who disbelieve in the PGF should not have any gripe with me, since they should not want to sell their position to the public based in part on an untruth.

Of course, debunking BH does not prove the authenticity of the PGF--that's a separate matter. There are one or two dozen more reasons for doubting it (along with an equal number for accepting it). Maybe I'll make up another pair of dueling business cards to get a concise summary of the arguments.

Other reasons for my criticizing BH's story are that it has unjustly injured the reputations of Gimlin and Patty Patterson in Yakima. I'd like to Undo that. Also, it is a revolting fraud upon the public, for the sake of money via a hoped-for TV special, and its perpetuator (and his champions) deserve to be ridiculed.

Here are Long’s challenges:

Greg Long—Read the book and make lists of all the things that are problems. . . . Here’s my data. I have, in my opinion, disproved your data. All you have to do is disprove the book. Disprove it!
—SHOUTED @1:29 into a speech to the Int’l. Bigfoot Society in Portland, OR, March 27, 2004; videotaped by Patti Reinhold

Greg Long—The Bigfoot leaders need to disprove my book.
—@ about 50 minutes into his speech to the Int’l. Bigfoot Society in Portland, OR, March 27, 2004; videotaped by Patti Reinhold

Greg Long—If he [Scott Herriot] sees a contradiction, the proper way to go about it is to publish it. . . . Tell me the contradiction—I’ll answer it.
—@ 75 minutes into a speech to the Int’l. Bigfoot Society in Portland, OR, March 27, 2004, videotaped by Patti Reinhold

Greg Long—My findings are BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. . . . if people feel otherwise, they NEED TO DISPROVE ME. [Long’s caps]
—“Statement from Author Greg Long on Patterson Film,” at http://www.rense.com/general50/statement.htm

Greg Long—Read the book! Read the book. Mr. Davis, if you have not read my book, page by page, line by line, analyzed—
—Tom Biscardi Internet radio interview, March 14, 2007

Greg Long—The people in the Bigfoot community are going to have to start raising their standards. They’re going to have to start doing the hard detective work that it takes, investigative work that it takes. Otherwise I think they’re losing, and may lose their credibility.
—Jeff Rense Internet radio show, second hour, March 1, 2004

Greg Long—You need to really do your homework and track people down.
—Seth Shostak’s “Skeptical Sunday” radio show, 8/1/2004, 20:15 minutes into the show

Greg Long—“The Bigfoot community needs to get serious and gather evidence and present it professionally.”
—Speech to the Int’l Bigfoot Society in Portland, OR, March 27, 2004; videotaped by Patti Reinhold

Greg Long—So the pattern is there that on one side the media is very interested in knowing about the film. I’m certain they would love to hear the other side if the Bigfoot community would approach them somewhat differently than this emotionalism that they’re involved in.
—Third Jeff Rense radio interview, section Greg Long 1, April 6, 2004

 

[John Nowak]

You made a sweeping statement that needed to be qualified (by the fact that “memorable” events are often remembered):

First, you're not able to show where Bob stumbled. Even if you could, it's not surprising he might forget.