Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[LTC8K6]

Great, so there’s no need to defend Heironimus.

There is however, a need to refute silly arguments, even if they don't matter.

All this talk about Patty's fluid, graceful, inhuman, gliding motion, and now she tripped, or barfed, maybe while looking back again at Roger.

It's beyond gold now, it's platinum comedy.

But wait!

Patty stood still when she looked at Roger, according to Roger in the February 1968 version. Roger was filming her, and then she stopped and looked back at him. The clicking of the camera supposedly made her stop, right? This was early during the filming.

"She was just swinging along as the first part of my film shows but, all of a sudden, she just stopped dead and looked around at me. She wasn't scared a bit. Fact is, I don't think she was scared of me, and the only thing I can think of is that the clicking of my camera was new to her." RP, Argosy 2/68.

Maybe the sudden stop made her stumble?

(Where is that clip where Patty stops and looks back, he asked again, without hope.)

 

[LTC8K6]

Imagine what we could do with Roger's clip where Patty stopped? We'd have over a dozen really good stills to work with.

I wonder why Roger never showed this clip to anyone?

 

[Roger Knights]

Recently Vortigern99 questioned my honesty and competence. I’ll reply to him directly in due course. However, his statement gives me a “peg” on which to cite a recent instance where I could easily have concealed an inconvenient truth, but didn’t. It also gives me a chance to pass along some news most persons here may not have heard of yet, but would be pleased to hear.

What follows in an e-mail I sent on June 8, 2016 to Bigfoothunter, which he posted on BFF.
================

Hi [real name],

Here’s an e-mail I just sent to Dan Perez. I fear that he won’t print it, or not all of it, especially since next month will likely be entirely devoted to John Green. So you may post this online wherever the matter of Laverty’s drive-by is being discussed.
~~~~~~~

I’m glad you [Dan Perez] posted Jim McClarin’s statements last month (June) that Patty’s tracks would not have been visible to passengers in Lyle Laverty’s Jeep. [I now presume because of the three-foot high embankment on the far side of the creek.] I had obtained a similar statement from Laverty himself about nine years ago, in a follow-up questionnaire of mine that was read to him by Bigfoot skeptic Michael Dennett. (Laverty hadn’t responded to my follow-up e-mails.)

I asked if it was possible that he might have missed seeing the tracks and he responded, "It was possible--it was quite possible."

I wasn’t able to publish that because he required that his questionnaire answers not be made known. Dennett was very stern to me about that. I figure that the reason for his desire for secrecy was to avoid creating a possible difficulty in his upcoming senate confirmation hearing to be an Asst. Sec. of the Interior.

I’ve written to Laverty twice since then asking for release of his interview, without response. I think that now there’s no reason for maintaining confidentiality, because it’s important for Bigfooters and skeptics to know the truth, and because I want to “undo” my Bigfoot Times article of 9/2006, in which I claimed that Laverty’s failure to see the tracks on Thursday or Friday morning discredited Heironimus’s claim that the tracks had been laid down days or weeks in advance of Oct. 20.

 

[jerrywayne]

There is however, a need to refute silly arguments, even if they don't matter.

All this talk about Patty's fluid, graceful, inhuman, gliding motion, and now she tripped, or barfed, maybe while looking back again at Roger.

It's beyond gold now, it's platinum comedy.

But wait!

Patty stood still when she looked at Roger, according to Roger in the February 1968 version. Roger was filming her, and then she stopped and looked back at him. The clicking of the camera supposedly made her stop, right? This was early during the filming.

"She was just swinging along as the first part of my film shows but, all of a sudden, she just stopped dead and looked around at me. She wasn't scared a bit. Fact is, I don't think she was scared of me, and the only thing I can think of is that the clicking of my camera was new to her." RP, Argosy 2/68.

Maybe the sudden stop made her stumble?

(Where is that clip where Patty stops and looks back, he asked again, without hope.)

Apparently this is the part of the film Roger P. was referencing:

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...oot-film-the-little-seen-first-lookback-clip/

 

[jerrywayne]

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.

I agree with Parcher here. The butt crack that Davis argues (and apparently Roger K. accepts uncritically) is probably the ("spinal") line running down the back. Even if Patterson's subject "bends" it isn't as severe as Davis believes: either the subject is moving "downhill" as Parcher thinks, or maybe moving under an unseen tree limb or brush. While this interpretation is not conclusive, it is at least as strong as the idea that "Patty" is falling.

The relevant part of the video: https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...gfoot-film-the-first-walk-sequence-ends-here/

Wonder if Davis' interpretation here is the origin of his fanciful idea that "Patty" was shot and killed that day at Bluff Creek.

 

[jerrywayne]

3241

Roger K.,

In post #3241, you make this statement:

"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."

While I appreciate the sentiment, I think it is misguided. For instance, you freely make use of M.K. Davis' work, yet his narrative for the Patterson film is more damaging to Patterson's reputation, one might argue, than anything BH has asserted. As far as I know, Davis' accusations has not damaged his relationship with Patty Patterson or upset Gimlin.

And if you are serious about uncovering "a revolting fraud upon the public," you may want to reconsider your leanings toward the Patterson film. If it is a fraud, as many of us here think it is, then it is a far, far more "revolting fraud upon the public" than anything BH would be involved in.

 

[BayWatcher]

Roger K.,

In post #3241, you make this statement:

"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."

While I appreciate the sentiment, I think it is misguided. For instance, you freely make use of M.K. Davis' work, yet his narrative for the Patterson film is more damaging to Patterson's reputation, one might argue, than anything BH has asserted. As far as I know, Davis' accusations has not damaged his relationship with Patty Patterson or upset Gimlin.

And if you are serious about uncovering "a revolting fraud upon the public," you may want to reconsider your leanings toward the Patterson film. If it is a fraud, as many of us here think it is, then it is a far, far more "revolting fraud upon the public" than anything BH would be involved in.

I bet that Roger has an 86 page answer to this. I'm sure he'll be by with a link shortly.

 

[Roger Knights]

I'll hie me wherever I wants.

You’re right. I should not have worded my last sentence imperatively, but questioningly, thus:

Then complain to the administrators here, demanding that this thread be deleted. If they won’t do it, then what’s keeping you here? Why not hie thee hence?

 

[Roger Knights]

Roger K.,

In post #3241, you make this statement:

"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."

While I appreciate the sentiment, I think it is misguided. For instance, you freely make use of M.K. Davis' work, yet his narrative for the Patterson film is more damaging to Patterson's reputation, one might argue, than anything BH has asserted.

But there’s no logical reason I shouldn’t use frames he has pointed out because his massacre theory, etc., impugns Patterson’s account. So there’s nothing misguided about what I’ve done.

As far as I know, Davis' accusations has not damaged his relationship with Patty Patterson or upset Gimlin.

Ho. Ho. Gimlin has threatened him, dare I say, “pugilistically.” Mrs. Patterson won’t talk to him.

And if you are serious about uncovering "a revolting fraud upon the public," you may want to reconsider your leanings toward the Patterson film. If it is a fraud, as many of us here think it is, then it is a far, far more "revolting fraud upon the public" than anything BH would be involved in.

But I don’t think it’s a fraud. (Well, to be more exact, 2/3 of me doesn’t think it’s a fraud.) And I think Patterson and the PGF have already received lots of criticism. (Maybe ISF should “mine” its threads for such criticism and compile an edited compendium, topically sorted, into a relatively concise summary, for the benefit of relative outsiders to the controversy. It could even be sold as an eBook, maybe, as well as being posted on the PDF Archive or DropBox or Scribd.)

As an extra benefit, it would maybe spur the BFF folks to do a compilation of their own. It’s a shame so much effort and so many comments, sometimes amusing, have been effectively “lost.”

There’s nothing wrong with picking and choosing which hoax to expose, as long as other purported hoaxes are not escaping examination. Think of it as, in effect, a red-team / blue team collaboration.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

"Debunking Heironimus" is a nonsense term.

So carefully chosen for vagueness. A person cannot be debunked. Only something that is said or written can be debunked.

You would debunk Heironimus being in the suit if you were not gaming. Little old innocent me. Working on my 86 page paper on why his car gets 32 mpg and not 33 mpg.

That's the proof you don't believe in the PGF or bigfoot. You would do something that showed you believed.

What would you say is the strongest evidence you can produce that you believe in bigfoot? Not saying you do. Some action you actually take?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

edit: dup post lost in the fog

 

[Roger Knights]

There is however, a need to refute silly arguments, even if they don't matter.

All this talk about Patty's fluid, graceful, inhuman, gliding motion, and now she tripped, or barfed, maybe while looking back again at Roger.

It's beyond gold now, it's platinum comedy.

Implying that a graceful person can’t trip or barf is irrational—in fact, a strawman. (There are probably YouTube videos of graceful athletes, and even cats, tripping and/or barfing.)

But wait! Patty stood still when she looked at Roger, according to Roger in the February 1968 version. Roger was filming her, and then she stopped and looked back at him. The clicking of the camera supposedly made her stop, right? This was early during the filming.

I don’t think it was that early in the filming, depending on what we mean by early. Patterson said that when she gave him a mean look, like an umpire saying approximately “one more word from you and you’re out of the game,” he stopped chasing her and fell to his knees, which is the beginning of the second phase of the the film, the relatively stable portion, with the log in front of him. So it occurred after frame 231 (233 by Munns’s count), which is about 2/9 of the way through the footage, which isn’t as early as the bending footage, at very roughly frame 180.

Patterson took his finger off the trigger twice between those two frames, per Munns, although the first time was very briefly, so the missing lookback could have occurred during the second period, or when his camera was flailing about as he chased her.

"She was just swinging along as the first part of my film shows but, all of a sudden, she just stopped dead and looked around at me. She wasn't scared a bit. Fact is, I don't think she was scared of me, and the only thing I can think of is that the clicking of my camera was new to her." RP, Argosy 2/68.

But the clicking might not have been ongoing at the point she first looked back. She might have been curious why the clicking stopped.

Maybe the sudden stop made her stumble?

No, more likely it was looking back at Patterson that made her lose track of the ground ahead of her.

(Where is that clip where Patty stops and looks back, he asked again, without hope.)

I think it could have been in the blurred footage while flailing, or the trigger-off footage. Or maybe the bending footage is what Patterson meant, although he continued his pursuit for longer than he said. It wouldn’t be the first time he sexed-up his story (presumably for the Hollywood version he hoped would follow).

(Re sexing up: I interviewed John Ballard (TMoB, pp. 227–38) in 2012. He told me he met Patterson, a near-neighbor and close friend, on Sunday, October 22. He asked Patterson why he was limping, and Patterson said that his horse had bolted while he had one foot in a stirrup while dismounting, and his foot had been jerked forward for while, with him attached, before it worked loose. In other words, he knowingly sexed up his tale for the public with his horse-falling-on-him baloney, again presumably with Hollywood in mind. You heard it first here, folks.)

(BTW, since Gimlin disclaimed the falling-horse fantasy, that counts, if anyone is keeping score, as evidence against a hoax in which Patterson and Gimlin were collaborators.)

PS: Hmmm, in light of Patterson’s sexing up elsewhere, I wonder if his threatening-first-lookback version in close-conjunction with his falling to his knees was also embroidery for Hollywood.

I believe that Gimlin said Patty looked back twice, but he could have been referring to the lookback in the the first stumble frames. If so, my pointing out Patty’s in-profile head and eye-in-view counts as a “find,”—if no-one else has found it first. (It’s probable that someone else has.)

 

[Roger Knights]

And the winner of the "Most Wordy BLAARGist Award" is....

You ain't seen nothing yet. Kit was regularly belabored similarly, when he posted on BFF. When he and I get into it, that's when you'll see some award winners! (-;

 

[dmaker]

But there’s no logical reason I shouldn’t use frames he has pointed out because his massacre theory, etc., impugns Patterson’s account. So there’s nothing misguided about what I’ve done.



Ho. Ho. Gimlin has threatened him, dare I say, “pugilistically.” Mrs. Patterson won’t talk to him.



But I don’t think it’s a fraud. (Well, to be more exact, 2/3 of me doesn’t think it’s a fraud.) And I think Patterson and the PGF have already received lots of criticize. (Maybe ISF should “mine” its threads for such criticism and compile an edited compendium, topically sorted, into a relatively concise summary, for the benefit of relative outsiders to the controversy. It could even be sold as an eBook, maybe, as well as being posted on the PDF Archive or DropBox or Scribd.)

As an extra benefit, it would maybe spur the BFF folks to do a compilation of their own. It’s a shame so much effort and so many comments, sometimes amusing, have been effectively “lost.”

There’s nothing wrong with picking and choosing which hoax to expose, as long as other purported hoaxes are not escaping examination. Think of it as, in effect, a red-team / blue team collaboration.

Allow me to save time and summarize such efforts: There is no such thing as a Bigfoot vs illogical ramblings of crayon wielding lunatics.

 

[Roger Knights]

Originally Posted by William Parcher
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.

I received an e-mail a few hours ago from Steven Streufert that bears on what were discussing. It’s all just technical, so I presume it’s OK for me to post it without asking him (at nearly 4 A.M.) Here goes:

I did a little approximate markup on the early frame of the PGF that Roger [Knights] used in his original emailed document. As Patty moves to the right in this image it is at the same time that Patterson is entering the creekbed and getting to the water of the creek to cross it. The film subject goes behind the opposite bank of the creek at this point, as Roger's position temporarily lowers before he reaches the other side.

Note that the bank is higher than three feet, despite what McClarin said. Note that one side of the bank in this image is higher than the side to the left.

In Steven Streufert’s mark-ups, he indicated the presence of a substantial “Berm of opposite bank” well beyond (20 feet?) the creek’s “embankment.” In an earlier e-mail to me he’d suggested that the ground sloped down beyond the berm. So, about geographical features, Parcher was mostly right (in an earlier comment, mostly), and I was partly right—i.e., about the film being shot from down in the creek.

But it doesn’t follow, as Parcher claimed in the boldfaced portion above, that those geographical features, which only account for the gradual disappearance of three-fourths of her legs, actually show that “Her butt and legs are completely hidden behind the sand berm.” Just take a look at the link to Davis’s GIF (without the close-up view of the hemorrhoids this time), supplied by Jerry Wayne:
https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...foot-film-the-first-walk-sequence-ends-here/

At the end, an increasing torso bend is, or should be, obvious. I guess it’s at least 15 degrees beyond her estimated normal 20-degree forward bend—i.e., 35 degrees. Doesn’t it look that way, people?

Further, I believe in the brown-tinged image I’ve posted, which is the true “final” image in that segment of the film (before Patterson released the trigger). It was preceded by at least a second’s worth of too-blurry frames, as is evident from her position having moved six feet or so to the right of the white tree she was formerly alongside. Despite blurring and pixilation, I consider that it can only be Patty. It wasn’t a tulpa or anything of that sort, presumably. Or a quick brown fox.

Basic features are apparent: the butt, the butt crack, thighs below the butt, the right arm dangling, all resembling what’s seen in prior images. Above the butt is a much-diminished torso, as indicated by the much shorter distance the head is above the butt. The head seems to still be in profile, because it is still proportionately wider than it is in other back-view shots of Patty, where she is looking straight ahead. So I consider that valid evidence of a very substantial bend, probably due to a stumble that Heironimus strongly denies.

Whether this conflict with reality is due to Heironimus having made up his whole story, or to his having unconsciously created a self-serving false memory of not stumbling (a far-out possibility I’d never considered), is not all-important. At a minimum, it is a piece of evidence suggesting that other details in his his account cannot be relied on, as they may be false memories too. In conjunction with other indications of his unreliable testimony, such as I documented in www.pdf-archive.com/2012/01/13/art-heironimus-vs-heironimus/‎, it builds a case for skepticism of his whole account. In other words, people should not swallow Long’s book hook, line, and sinker, but read it skeptically.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

But I don’t think it’s a fraud. (Well, to be more exact, 2/3 of me doesn’t think it’s a fraud.) And I think Patterson and the PGF have already received lots of criticism.

And therein lies your agenda.

You keep claiming to be on the fence, but are obviously more than willing to believe that the PGF is anything more than a hoax. You go to great lengths to offer reasons for why you think it's real, all the while trying to make believe that you're being impartial.

Also, of course Patterson and his hoaxed film have received lots of criticism, why on earth should it not? It's a hoaxed film, made by a known hoaxer, on a stolen camera, earning him enough money to dump on himself in his hotel room after a gig showing said hoaxed film, filmed on a stolen camera, lol.

But I guess if you're willing to believe in Tulpa's, you kind of have to support nonsense like the PGF.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Whether this conflict with reality is due to Heironimus having made up his whole story, or to his having unconsciously created a self-serving false memory of not stumbling (a far-out possibility I’d never considered), is not all-important. At a minimum, it is a piece of evidence suggesting that other details in his his account cannot be relied on, as they may be false memories too. In conjunction with other indications of his unreliable testimony, such as I documented in www.pdf-archive.com/2012/01/13/art-heironimus-vs-heironimus/‎, it builds a case for skepticism of his whole account. In other words, people should not swallow Long’s book hook, line, and sinker, but read it skeptically.

This is a charmingly hilarious post, soaked in irony and contradiction.

Patterson and Gimlin got basically most of their own story incorrect, and repeatedly made the kinds of contradictory blunders that would only be apparent in people who are talking complete and utter bollocks and making it up as they go along.

Let's be honest here, there's no way on earth that you'd struggle to remember whether your horse reared up, threw you off, ran away, landed on you, bent your stirrup and everything else in between...

But oddly, both Patterson and Gimlin got all of that wrong, and much more.

In one story, the calm horses weren't a problem, and Roger dismounted gracefully. In another story, they panicked, reared up and threw Roger off.

This, in and of itself, is quite bloody obviously such a red herring in terms of a hoax, that to bypass it and act like it's insignificant is nothing less than embarrassing, especially if you're a man in your 70s. If you don't smarten up now, you never bloody will.

But I wonder if getting smart to this painfully obvious hoax is even something RK is capable of, considering the fact that he likely doesn't believe it and is generally just looking for a way to pass the time cheaply.

 

[LTC8K6]

Apparently this is the part of the film Roger P. was referencing:

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...oot-film-the-little-seen-first-lookback-clip/

And?

 

[LTC8K6]

Implying that a graceful person can’t trip or barf is irrational—in fact, a strawman. (There are probably YouTube videos of graceful athletes, and even cats, tripping and/or barfing.)



I don’t think it was that early in the filming, depending on what we mean by early. Patterson said that when she gave him a mean look, like an umpire saying approximately “one more word from you and you’re out of the game,” he stopped chasing her and fell to his knees, which is the beginning of the second phase of the the film, the relatively stable portion, with the log in front of him. So it occurred after frame 231 (233 by Munns’s count), which is about 2/9 of the way through the footage, which isn’t as early as the bending footage, at very roughly frame 180.

Patterson took his finger off the trigger twice between those two frames, per Munns, although the first time was very briefly, so the missing lookback could have occurred during the second period, or when his camera was flailing about as he chased her.



But the clicking might not have been ongoing at the point she first looked back. She might have been curious why the clicking stopped.



No, more likely it was looking back at Patterson that made her lose track of the ground ahead of her.



I think it could have been in the blurred footage while flailing, or the trigger-off footage. Or maybe the bending footage is what Patterson meant, although he continued his pursuit for longer than he said. It wouldn’t be the first time he sexed-up his story (presumably for the Hollywood version he hoped would follow).

(Re sexing up: I interviewed John Ballard (TMoB, pp. 227–38) in 2012. He told me he met Patterson, a near-neighbor and close friend, on Sunday, October 22. He asked Patterson why he was limping, and Patterson said that his horse had bolted while he had one foot in a stirrup while dismounting, and his foot had been jerked forward for while, with him attached, before it worked loose. In other words, he knowingly sexed up his tale for the public with his horse-falling-on-him baloney, again presumably with Hollywood in mind. You heard it first here, folks.)

(BTW, since Gimlin disclaimed the falling-horse fantasy, that counts, if anyone is keeping score, as evidence against a hoax in which Patterson and Gimlin were collaborators.)

PS: Hmmm, in light of Patterson’s sexing up elsewhere, I wonder if his threatening-first-lookback version in close-conjunction with his falling to his knees was also embroidery for Hollywood.

I believe that Gimlin said Patty looked back twice, but he could have been referring to the lookback in the the first stumble frames. If so, my pointing out Patty’s in-profile head and eye-in-view counts as a “find,”—if no-one else has found it first. (It’s probable that someone else has.)

I said tripping and/or barfing was funny, not impossible.

RK, please tell me why I should believe anything RP (or BG) says about the PGF incident, particularly when I'm certain it's a hoax?

Why wasn't Patterson limping in earlier versions of events?

How does he get the camera out so easily if his foot is caught in the stirrup of a bolting horse?

All of this story modification is really silly, imo.

Maybe BH sexed up his story, too? Maybe BH doesn't want to be the actor who tripped on camera?

Again I see you treating witnesses differently. It's a poor way to argue.

 

[dmaker]

But I wonder if getting smart to this painfully obvious hoax is even something RK is capable of, ...

I believe he is 1/3 capable.