Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Roger Knights]

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.

Take a look at my 30th or 32 Item in the “Heironimus vs. Heironimus” paper I’ve linked to before, “Did BH ‘come forward’ with money in mind?” Heironimus sank to sanctimonious hypocrisy, which is more revolting than a clever hoax, IMO.

 

[Roger Knights]

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.

Take a look at my 30th or 32 Item in the “Heironimus vs. Heironimus” paper I’ve linked to before, “Did BH ‘come forward’ with money in mind?” Heironimus sank to sanctimonious hypocrisy, which is more revolting than a clever hoax, IMO.

 

[William Parcher]

I don't know why anyone would think that the sand berm we are talking about is only 3 feet high. It is quite obviously much taller than that. You can see it.

There are probably multiple sand berms out there in the big open area. The creek probably altered its course over history leaving behind various berms here and there. There may very well be 3 foot berms out there, but this isn't one of them.

Roger, I have no confidence or respect whatsoever for your evaluation of visual evidence which is right in front of your eyes. Hitching your wagon to Davis' horse is not a feature for enhancement of your arguments - it is a symptom.

 

[William Parcher]

Davis sees a braided ponytail on Patty.

Davis sees a bloody bullet wound on Patty.

Davis sees a stick being carried by Patty.

Davis sees a bloody footprint of a dog on the sand.

Etcetera.

At this point, a thinking person will reject Davis' ability to properly and rationally evaluate and explain what is there on the film. But what has happened? Roger Knights is using Davis and his manipulated images to construct an argument.

Hemorrhoids. By golly, doctors can see them there too.

 

[Vortigern99]

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.

Most people call this "forgetting". You label it "unconsciously creating a self-serving false memory of not" doing the forgotten activity. Good luck persuading Webster to change their definition of forget.

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.

Agreed! ... along with every other piece of surprising game-changing, or otherwise extraordinary information that comes our way. Such as, for example, that either a) undocumented bipedal apes or b) mystical beings are roaming the wilds of North America. You may wish to examine that claim with the same scrutiny and critical thinking you've applied to Bob H.'s story.

 

[William Parcher]

...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.

Laverty was uncooperative and now he won't respond to you at all. You think it's because of his political career and his concern about being appointed? You think his people actually read Bigfoot stuff and would then give him heat because of what they read? Do you think that the government reads what you post about Bigfoot on the web? Do you have a fantasy of your name being mentioned in a US Senate meeting?

Roger, I think you have missed another reason why Laverty would not want to play email with you.

 

[jerrywayne]

And?

So there is a stop (very briefly) and look back. This doesn't verify anything, however: a chance encounter with a real ape or a stage managed costume production.

 

[William Parcher]

So there is a stop (very briefly) and look back. This doesn't verify anything, however: a chance encounter with a real ape or a stage managed costume production.

Jerry, Patty doesn't stop. Davis makes her stop by halting the film clip.

Remember one thing - MK Davis is not an honest player in the game.

 

[Roger Knights]

I want to qualify the closing sentence of my reply to Jerry Wayne, “Heironimus sank to sanctimonious hypocrisy, which is more revolting than a clever hoax, IMO.”

I only had in mind a hoax that didn’t cheat anyone out of more than the price of a movie ticket. Patterson’s behavior in selling overlapping rights to various persons was worse, and his cheating of Mrs. Radford was despicable—worse than Heironimus’s sanctimonious hypocrisy, which was only an occasional feature of his, anyway.

 

[Roger Knights]

I've deleted this accidental double-post.--RK

 

[jerrywayne]

Jerry, Patty doesn't stop. Davis makes her stop by halting the film clip.

Remember one thing - MK Davis is not an honest player in the game.

Not so sure about the "Patty doesn't stop" idea. After all, we have a quote from Patterson to that effect. In my view, Patterson was relating his choreography of the scene. Since this particular part of the filming was so helter-skelter, with Patterson's unsteady hand in play, it's easy to understand why he never made an issue of first look back later (because no one really noticed it or could see it by a casual viewing).

As far as MK Davis not being an honest player -- well you know how I feel about assuming most professed Bigfooters are dishonest, knowingly dishonest that is. If you want to think Davis has deluded himself by too many hours spent at his computer and too much time with Bigfoot lore, I would be on board with that.

 

[jerrywayne]

Roger K.,

Here is your response to Skeptical Greg's statement that BH walks like Patty:

http://s7.photobucket.com/user/RogerKni/library/BF Pattys Shank Stride and Sole?sort=3&page=1

You use the iconic single frame of the film showing Patterson's subject's leg follow through, placing knee to ankle at virtually horizontally to the ground.

Look at this clip of the actual film. Is the photo you used really representative of "Patty's" walk?

https://thedavisreport.wordpress.co...ames-added-enhanced-deblurred-and-stabilized/

May we conclude that Heironimus's walk now ought not exactly match his walk at the Bluff Creek site (if he was Patterson's subject), given the time and age difference? I would say yes.

But there is something else to consider. The film subject is walking somewhat in the fashion of the famous walk of Groucho Marx's. Here is a brief article on the benefits of "the Groucho:"

http://painlesstechnology.blogspot.mx/2008/08/groucho-walk.html

It's very possible that Patterson coached his subject to walk a little different than his normal walk; the idea that an apish walk would entail bent knees and a stooped posture would suggest itself, not to mention the utilitarian benefit of such a walk on unfamiliar terrain.

 

[William Parcher]

Jerry, I count it as fabrication preceding any delusion. Davis consistently alters still images and clips before he points at them and makes his deluded claims.

He messes with the tint, saturation, contrast, etc. until something paraidoliac shows up. Then he tells you that this is what's captured on the film itself. By jacking the tint and saturation, he causes black Patty to suddenly show red blood. He "found" a big bloodstain out on the sand by drastically changing the color of the film. He says that is where they buried the dead Bigfoot bodies.

It's dishonest to alter the film in such ways and not explain exactly what you did. When you explain that the audience suddenly knows that the red colors were actually created by you out of nothingness.

His hemorrhoid butt bend clip is altered in a variety of ways. In another clip, he gets Patty to stop by stopping her.

 

[jerrywayne]

Jerry, I count it as fabrication preceding any delusion. Davis consistently alters still images and clips before he points at them and makes his deluded claims.

He messes with the tint, saturation, contrast, etc. until something paraidoliac shows up. Then he tells you that this is what's captured on the film itself. By jacking the tint and saturation, he causes black Patty to suddenly show red blood. He "found" a big bloodstain out on the sand by drastically changing the color of the film. He says that is where they buried the dead Bigfoot bodies.

It's dishonest to alter the film in such ways and not explain exactly what you did. When you explain that the audience suddenly knows that the red colors were actually created by you out of nothingness.

His hemorrhoid butt bend clip is altered in a variety of ways. In another clip, he gets Patty to stop by stopping her.

Well, I do agree his claims are "deluded claims."

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Davis sees a braided ponytail on Patty.

Davis sees a bloody bullet wound on Patty.

Davis sees a stick being carried by Patty.

Davis sees a bloody footprint of a dog on the sand.

Etcetera.

At this point, a thinking person will reject Davis' ability to properly and rationally evaluate and explain what is there on the film. But what has happened? Roger Knights is using Davis and his manipulated images to construct an argument.

Hemorrhoids. By golly, doctors can see them there too.

But he could've been right about everything else... Just as Roger could've been telling the truth when he said he filmed a Bigfoot. Forget the fact that he was a known hoaxer, making a Bigfoot movie, and had just published a book about Bigfoot containing an image of an early draft of Patty, he still could've been lucky enough to get a real Bigfoot on film, just like MK could've been lucky enough to actually find a frame in which Patty bends over. Forget the fact that he sees all manner of unbelievable nonsense in those same frames, he could be right about this one...

And that is how you continue a belief in something fictional. You make excuses.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

You may wish to examine that claim with the same scrutiny and critical thinking you've applied to Bob H.'s story.

That's not how the game works, unfortunately.

This is a man who claims that the diaper-like butt should be ignored, whereas the incredibly imaginative (and ridiculously blurred image of what might as well be a close-up of a walnut) frame put forward by MK Davis (original creator of the Bigfoot Masscare Embarrassment) is actually a still of Patty bending over, and should be acknowledged by all.

Forget the strings, just look how life-like that puppet is!

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I believe he is 1/3 capable.

That's far too generous!

 

[Roger Knights]

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.

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

By “moving under an unseen tree limb or brush” I assume you mean "ducking under an unseen tree limb or brush.” That could explain the bending if Patty were near the treeline in the background, but in fact it’s far away—it just looks close. The only obstruction on the sandbar is the S-branch, which is on the near side of her.

Here’s the final frame of the Davis sequence you linked to, with my annotations again. I think you’re right that the bend isn’t as severe as Davis (and I) inferred—I guess now that it’s only 35 degrees. I’ve conceded that the subject is moving downhill (a bit) and that there’s an intermediary berm. But now tell me again that “The butt crack that Davis argues (and apparently Roger K. accepts uncritically) is probably the ("spinal") line running down the back.” Look at the arm and its elbow on the right. It would be out of proportion for the butt to be part of the back. More important, the location I labeled the butt is clearly the hinge where the torso bends forward.

While this interpretation is not conclusive, it is at least as strong as the idea that "Patty" is falling.

My case is stronger, because of the brown-tinted image that follows the one above, after an intermediary second or more of blurred frames. It shows a blurred Patty, but with landmark body parts identifiable, with an apparent 75-degree bend.

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

I think it was. I think he said that Patterson’s camera shook after he heard a shot, producing the blurry frames.

 

[Roger Knights]

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

You implied it was absurd, therefore 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?

I can’t help you there.

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

He was. It’s widely known that when he showed up at Al Hodgson’s store, he was limping, claiming his horse fell on him, and displaying a bent stirrup as evidence. It was also noted that Gimlin was strangely silent, probably (IMO) from disgust at this sexing up.

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

The horse wasn't bolting initially, it was rearing and jumping around, held in check by the reins. Even while Patterson had his foot jerked while dismounting, he held onto the reins. Once his foot came free, he was still holding the reins and was able to get his horse under control enough to get his camera out of the saddlebag and start shooting. Then, when the reins were no longer held, the horse bolted.

All of this story modification is really silly, imo.

Patterson’s limp wasn’t a modification; it was just new to you. Patterson’s horse not falling on him wasn’t a modification; Gimlin claimed that all along, and Bigfooters were split on what really happened. My discovery of what really caused the limp, from my interview of John Ballard, is not silly. It ties up a loose end and makes the story less contested.

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

Is this what you mean by my treating a witness more leniently? But I already conceded, in a reply to you, that this is a possibility for BH, albeit unconsciously:

I can think of reasons why Heironimus—or anyone—might say he hadn’t stumbled although he had. He says to himself, “I’m not a clumsy person, so I wouldn’t have stumbled.” Or he says to himself, “I did a great job, so how could I have stumbled?” Or he says to himself, “I don’t remember any stumble in the replays of the PGF I’ve seen, so there wasn’t a stumble.” Therefore, he convinces himself—the work of a fraction of a second—that he didn’t stumble. Once that conviction has had time to embed itself solidly in his mind, his memory would have reconstructed itself to conform.

That’s what Vortigern99 has been suggesting happened with Heironimus’s false statement. But Patterson did so knowingly, whereas Vortigern99 claims that Heironimus unconsciously created a false memory. (And claims, moreover, that I’m incompetent or dishonest not to have taken that as the default excplanation for his untrue claim.)

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

You should have been more specific. I now realize that you were alluding (in an earlier comment) to my paper, “Heironimus vs. Heironimus,” in which I listed that 45 of his self-contraditions, and wondering why I wasn’t as harsh on the contradicitions between Patterson and Gimlin as I was on Heironimus there (on page 5—elsewhere I was rarely judgmental). Well, one reason for being harsher on Heironimus is that he’s committed many more self-contradictions than P&G together.

Futher, if two witnesses disagree, one of them may be telling the truth, so disagreement between them doesn’t necessarily mean that both are impugned. Patterson had many bad characteristics and had a reason to lie: to sex up his story to make an exciting and thereby profitable Hollywood movie, starring himself.

And I am more lenient generally on P&G than on Heironimus, because they have film evidence to back up their story, which is almost independent of any flubs they might make about it.

Heironimus, OTOH, had opportunities to secure evidence for his claim in the early years (beyond the anecdotal suit-witness endorsement of his relatives and barroom buddies), such as work-attendance records from his employer or a photocopy of the logbook of the Eureka motel he stayed at, but failed to do so. If he paid the motel by check or credit card, a cancelled check or a monthly credit card statement would have sufficed.

The main reason I’m not paying attention here to P&G’s flubs is that we’re not arguing in this thread about the authenticity of the PGF, but about whether Heironimus was the one in the suit or not. So P&G’s flubs are moot.

 

[Roger Knights]

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?

In conjunction with the later, brown-tinted frame, following many (over 16 I guess) completely blurred frames, in which Patty seems to be bending about 75 degrees, it is evidence of the start of a stumble. I estimate 75 degrees because her head seems to be only about a foot above her butt.