• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
While I'm waiting for some BH evidence, I thought I'd post this:

"It seems only fitting that Bob Heironimus is now being exposed as the fraud that he is. Did he really think that he could create a story that would be tight enough to withstand scrutiny by those who knew the subject matter better than he obviously he did? There has since surfaced some evidence that explains how Bob Heironimus came up with the idea to say he was the guy in a monkey suit in the famous Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. I recently had spoken to a man named William DeHollander who had some information that seemed to explain the true motive behind Heironimus's claim.

It seems that DeHollander's wife worked at Central College University and had become friends with a woman named Denise Coffey. When William had first heard that an unnamed Yakima man was saying that he was involved in the Patterson/Gimlin film taken at Bluff Creek in 1967, DeHollander asked Denise if she had heard the story coming out of Yakima? (William had known that Denise was from Yakima and maybe had already heard about this mystery man.) Denise looked at William DeHollander and rolled her eyes and said you must be talking about Bob Heironimus. Denise went on to tell William that her husband (Neil), Bob Heironimus, and Barry Woodard use to sit around at her house and drink and tell stories. Denise had heard the guys laughing and going on how funny it would be if Heironimus told everyone that he was the guy in a monkey suit in the Bigfoot film that Roger Patterson shot in Northern California. They talked about how much they could sell such a story to "The Sun" newspaper for.

The Sun being a tabloid newspaper and the price Denise remembered them talking about was $50,000. DeHollander placed the time of Denise telling him about Heironimus at nine years ago. Denise's story truely explains why Heironimus wanted to discuss talking to his lawyer before doing an interview with Greg Long. When Long first talked to Heironimus, Bob had told him that he had nothing to do with Patterson and Gimlin's Bigfoot film. It was only after Long opened the door about there being a Bigfoot documentary Patterson was said to have been making prior to the Bluff Creek footage that Heironimus was willing to consider talking to Long and only after Bob consulted his attorney (Barry Woodard) who happened to be one of the men at Denise Coffey's house when all the talk about making up a story to sell the Sun had been taking place. It seems to me that Greg Long's first hunch about Bob Herionimus was correct. Long writes about his first contact with Heironimus on page 152, "When I finished, I concluded that I didn't believe Bob Heironimus ..." "

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/billmiller.htm

The new, improved suit:

billmiller15.gif
 
LAL said:
She's gone far beyond that NPR interview.
Click to expand...
And we may find this documented where ?

LAL said:
She was going to give the keynote address at the Willow Creek Symposium 2003, but had to return to Africa.
Click to expand...
So ?

LAL said:
Instead, she gave an interview where she gave her reasons for thinking as she does. She's no "romantic", even though she's described herself that way.
Click to expand...
Have you let Jane know you disagree with her self-description ..
 
William Parcher said:
Does it make you feel better when you see the Cibachrome of Frame 352 that Wolftrax would have been working from? He took great artistic liberties to make a guy in a suit look like a real Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

He took great artistic liberties to make a real animal look like ****.
 
LAL said:
I was led to my conclusions by events that happened in 1969. If all else could be disproven I would still accept that at least two animals matching the descriptions of sasquatches moved to lower elevations that year and left considerable physical evidence of their presence.
Click to expand...
Let's say this is out of the Q&A to help keep track. What events are you referring to?
LAL said:
She's gone far beyond that NPR interview. She was going to give the keynote address at the Willow Creek Symposium 2003, but had to return to Africa. Instead, she gave an interview where she gave her reasons for thinking as she does. She's no "romantic", even though she's described herself that way.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with someone being endeared to a romantic concept if they keep it in perspective as such, which I think Goodall does. I think it's important to note that in her NPR interview she is not specifically referring to bigfoot but rather an interest on the question of unknown hominid creatures throughout the world based on native traditions of them.
LAL said:
I didn't. I may have to filter some more noise and leave another board for awhile, but let's do it.
Click to expand...
Excellent. I think it may prove a very enlightening exchange for everyone.
 
William Parcher said:
Very interesting, Lu. The fingers suddenly vanish. That's far more amazing than a simple finger flexing. How could BH ever do that trick?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5499&stc=1&d=1171287320[/qimg]
Click to expand...

To me, it looks as if she's giving us the finger.
 
LTC8K6 wrote:
Originally Posted by LTC8K6
If it's a man in a suit, a possibility that no one has eliminated, what's the big deal about his fingers bending anyway?
Click to expand...
The big deal is this....BH's arms are too short.
If Patty's fingers are real...which they appear to be....they're not Bob's!
No amount of wishful-thinking by the resident skeptics can change that. :)
 

Attachments

  • BobPatty5.jpg
    BobPatty5.jpg
    108.2 KB · Views: 1
LAL said:
Nail polish?
Click to expand...

Sorry to see your powers of observation are limited to that.

Wolftrax gave her:

1) Complete hands with fingers which never seem to be fully resolved in the PGF.
2) No folds or bunching of her skin.
3) No thigh hernia.
4) Fully formed facial features instead of the obscure coarseness-of-features shown in the frames.
5) Areolae and nipples.
6) A proper butt instead of a diaper.
7) Nice musculature instead of things like "donuts".
8) A mostly clean face instead of hair almost everywhere.
9) Nice precise feet instead of "paddlefeet".

There is probably more, but basically being able to find those nine differences shows that you pretty much suck as an observer.
 
LTC8K6 wrote:
SweatyYeti wrote:
No amount of wishful-thinking by the resident skeptics can change that.
Click to expand...
No, but a suit would, as anyone can see.
Click to expand...
What do you mean exactly?


I thought you didn't think it was BH in the suit?
Click to expand...
You're right...I don't.
I'd give the odds of Bob H. being the guy inside the "suit" at approx. 100 trillion to one against.
Based on two things:

1) Bob's contradictory stories about the film.

2) The fact that his arms are too short for his hands to reach all the way to Patty's fingertips.

But I'm just using simple logic...don't let that sway you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom