Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

I sense in BH, the same sincerity you do ..

He has to be portrayed as sinister by the Pattycakes...
If his story is not contrived, the jig is up ...

 

[William Parcher]

Yes, if his story is not contrived then the jig is up. But even if he has contemporarily added changes and/or new affirmations about the event, it doesn't mean that he wasn't the guy in the suit after all. Maybe Heironimus is too human to work as a fully-convincing confessor. He doesn't strategically slice out the parts that obviously don't make sense or customize the story to perfectly counter the arguments of the Pattycakes. No, he just tells it the way he tells it. If you don't believe him then you don't. He has always been a pretty stereotypical working guy in Yakima, and now he tells us about his experience wearing the suit in the PGF. No matter how much any of us wishes he could produce physical evidence or get his recollective accounts in a better sort of order (Bob, leave out apparently contrary bits, would you please?)... he only just tells it like it was as far as he can remember. Bob seems willing to go on live radio shows and be asked questions that he doesn't know about in advance. He sounds like an average guy that is gonna tell you what he remembers about the event. He doesn't even seem to make stuff up as he goes. Some things he has no knowledge of, nor had opportunity to know and for these you will get a blank from him. If he was a constantly scheming liar, I would expect him to try to spontaneously concoct deadly answers to every question. He doesn't.

If he is a conniving liar trying to convince the world that he wore the suit, why in the world would he tell us that his brother said that Patterson talked about making the suit from a dead red horse? WTF? That doesn't even sound like something a liar would say. I think we can presume that BH, Howard, RP & BG are not colorblind and that all of them could see that Patty was not red. So why interject some stupid lie that the suit was the skin of a red horse? Because that's not what Bob Heironimus is saying. He can't tell us exactly what materials were used in the suit because he never really knew. He tells us what his brother was told by Roger. You get what you get from Bob. He doesn't even say that Patterson said he took a red horsehide and dyed it black. If Bob speculates that it was a red hide dyed black, it's not because he heard that from his brother or Roger. It would be because he actually thought that Patterson told the truth to Howard, but didn't mention coloring the whole thing black or very dark brown (it always looks like shades of black to me, and never brown).

What are we expected to think of this kind of a crazy addition to a hoaxed confession story when you just decide to talk about your brother being told by Patterson that the suit came from a dead red horse? I mean, you not only gotta make up the story of your brother hearing this from Patterson, but you have to fabricate the color of the skin and you pick RED. WTF?

If Bob Heironimus is lying about wearing the PGF suit, then it is much more than an armchair hoax. It's some kind of unique psychopathy that compels the "victim" to even go as far as implicating his neighbor (Gimlin) as the real liar. I wore the suit and that's the truth. My old buddy Bob Gimlin, who still lives real close to me, has for some reason decided to continue lying about this film. Bob Heironimus is telling us that Bob Gimlin hasn't stopped lying about the PGF right from the start. PGF skeptics already presume that, no matter what they think about BH.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I hope Roger Knights is reading this.. He really needs to give some thought to what you are saying...



P.S.
I don't know if I will have the opportunity, since I don't post much at BFF anymore, and I don't care to force the issue; but if the opportunity arises, do you mind if I quote all or part of this ?

 

[LTC8K6]

I like my theory that Patterson had more than one take, and the suit he gave BH to wear just didn't look right on film.

That is, BH did wear a suit like he described for Roger, but BH's performance was cut from the final movie in favor of a different suit and actor.

Who gets a hoax film just right on the first take?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I like my theory that Patterson had more than one take, and the suit he gave BH to wear just didn't look right on film.

That is, BH did wear a suit like he described for Roger, but BH's performance was cut from the final movie in favor of a different suit and actor.

Who gets a hoax film just right on the first take?

What nails it for me, is BH says he jumped into a hole by a large uprooted tree at the end of the walk; and a large uprooted tree is exactly what we see Patty approaching at the end of the film..

It's not that apparent unless you really study the zoomed in version on LMS, and I get the impression BH hasn't really studied the film all that close.

He comes out and says he looked back twice, so he's not worried about claiming something happened, that didn't show on the film ..

 

[William Parcher]

I hope Roger Knights is reading this.. He really needs to give some thought to what you are saying...

Of course Knights reads this forum. He's already made mention of my (JREF) posts on BFF, so we know this is (or was) true. You can bet that RK isn't the only "player" in the Bigfoot Game that reads these threads. Any thinking Pattycake (is that an oxymoron?) that has ever heard of the JREF Skeptical Bigfoot threads is going to be glued to this joint. Hello Loren Coleman, Craig Woolheater, Rick Noll, etc. Welcome to the best PGF/Bigfoot skepticism forum that exists anywhere. You can find skepticism on BFF and Cryptomundo, but it just ain't the same as the real deal right here. I'm continually amazed and awed by the observational skills and creativity of argument that comes from the handful of Bigfoot skeptic colleagues here. Bigfoot is so damn elusive and chameleonic that skeptics have little choice other than to argue against the believer - instead of simply arguing against Bigfoot as a creature. It's a real challenge to exclude ad hom arguments, because Bigfoot seems to be only a fancy property of the beliefs of believers, instead of a real animal that reproduces, eats, craps, dies or gets killed. How do you argue against a creature that is only a belief without talking about the believer? Instantly you must adopt an ad hom position, because that is the only thing that gets right to the point. You, me and the rest of the Bigfoot skeptics ought to know that ticky-tacky arguing against individual pieces of evidence is a waste of time if you think you are going to make a grassroots shift in beliefs. Showing that the act of pouring a casting agent into a footprint can result in cool parallel curvy lines in the cast isn't enough to pursuade believers into thinking that they got hosed by "Bigfoot experts". Even those experts might not like the idea that they got punked by some other Bigfooter. The thing that sticks in your mind however, is the idea that these folks are all objective souls who understand their own fallibility and credulity and are simply looking at the Bigfoot phenomena with an open mind. But they don't act that way. They keep on thinking what they started out thinking. Bigfoot exists and so they have to reverse-engineer any arguments to the contrary.

Do you know how the Pattycakes know that Patty is a real Bigfoot? Well, Bob Heironimus says she was made from red horsehide. We can all see that she is instead black, and so we automatically know that he is a liar. He said red, but she is black. He's a liar and nobody should pay any attention to what he has said or might say in the future. Heironimus is dead right out of the starting gate, and Patty always was alive. They might even suggest that BH is badder than bad. We all hate the criminal who lies on the stand claiming his innocence. But BH is something else entirely. Here's a guy that had nothing to do with the PGF, yet he makes a complex confession as if he was originally guilty of the crime and goes as far as implicating his neighbor as an accomplice. What kind of crazy crap is that? This is real died-in-the-wool insanity right? But there never could be such a trial because Heironimus would be declared insane and unfit for trial at the immediate onset. Why? Because he said the suit was made from a red horse and everyone can see that Patty is black!

P.S. I don't know if I will have the opportunity, since I don't post much at BFF anymore, and I don't care to force the issue; but if the opportunity arises, do you mind if I quote all or part of this?

I've said it to you before and I'll say it again. You have my full permission to quote anything I write here on the BFF or in any other forum. I know it doesn't feel right to do this without asking me each time, but I'm telling you that you don't have to ask for this.

 

[William Parcher]

I like my theory that Patterson had more than one take, and the suit he gave BH to wear just didn't look right on film. That is, BH did wear a suit like he described for Roger, but BH's performance was cut from the final movie in favor of a different suit and actor. Who gets a hoax film just right on the first take?

That's cool, and I don't have a slam dunk rebuttal (coming from a guy that thinks BH was the only dude in a one-take filming).

All I can do is ask you a question and also offer a speculation.

Creating a baseline uderstanding that leads to my question: You think that BH did wear a suit and was filmed by Patterson. You further think that some other guy (we'll call him Joe Blow) also wore a suit and was filmed by Patterson. RP had the opportunity to make a choice between the two actors and chose Joe Blow instead of BH. The on-screen acting and movements of BH and JB are so similar that BH can't automatically know that he wasn't really the guy in the suit when he watches the PGF (even if he never ever knew, and still doesn't know about JB).

My question (I guess there are multiple questions here): Do you think that BH wore a suit and was filmed by Patterson and yet is essentially innocently naive to the fact that RP also filmed Joe Blow and used his take instead? I'm asking if you think BH is simply wrong, instead of knowingly lying. If BH has any clue that there was a Joe Blow (a guy that was filmed by RP just like he was), then he ought not to be so confident that the Patty we all see is him instead of JB. If BH even knows or could possibly speculate that there was a Joe Blow, then why doesn't he mention this?

My speculation: Bob Heironimus is confidently claiming to be Patty because he knows that he was Patty. He knows this because he wore the suit for Roger and when he finally got to see the PGF he could see that it was him after all. Bob understood that Roger planned a hoax, executed it using him, and then went on marketing it to the world as if it were real.

If Patty was Joe Blow instead of Bob Heironimus, then there is a situation worth mentioning. Joe Blow must be a real person. Is he alive or dead? Is he watching BH make all of these declarative claims in the press to being Patty? Does he not have any interest in making a confession himself that would override BH? It seems to me that BH is riding some kind of confidence wave that allows him to feel that Joe Blow won't come out of the woodwork and say that he is wrong. If Joe Blow exists but BH never ever knew about him... why don't we hear from this Joe Blow? Does he have a real and important reason to stay silent after all of the things that BH has said? I mean, if JB came out and confessed, it wouldn't necessarily label BH as a fabricating liar. He could say that we obviously were both actors for Patterson, and he eventually decided to use my take instead of yours. Bob, I understand why you think you were Patty because Roger had us both do the essentially same thing out on the sandbar. Joe is then going to have to point out why he knows it was his take that was used, instead of the one with BH.

Who is Joe Blow? Is it Bob Gimlin?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Bigfoot exists and so they have to reverse-engineer any arguments to the contrary.

I really liked that ...

I particularly like the contradictions regarding why no one has ever shot a Bigfoot, and why someone is in danger of being shot if they dress up like one...

Go figure..

 

[William Parcher]

I really liked that ...

Thanks, I guess. The same thing has already been said here fifteen different ways and they usually include the term excuses.

I particularly like the contradictions regarding why no one has ever shot a Bigfoot, and why someone is in danger of being shot if they dress up like one...

People have shot and killed Bigfoot. The records tell of it. The only problem is that the body has never been recovered. For a Bigfooter, that isn't so much a problem as an unfortunate feature of the Bigfoot phenomenon. Eventually a body will be recovered. Experts have been saying that this will take 5-10 years. They've been saying this same thing for forty years. But that ongoing and unfulfilled prophesy doesn't mean that Bigfoot doesn't exist. No, you see the animal does exist and we are only mortal humans left to deal with a continual bad luck situation that always works in the favor of this hidden beast. You see, Bigfoot is not just a fantastic creature. It's a fantastic creature that always remains fully resistant to any kind of real confirmation.

Some credible guy shot and killed a Bigfoot but the body never made it to an institution. I don't believe that story and I still don't believe that Bigfoot exists. What? Are you so confined to your computer chair that you can't understand that somebody could kill an animal and yet that animal doesn't end up on a lab? Do you live deep in a city or what? Have you ever hunted or what? Are you calling the guy that killed a Bigfoot a liar, or what?

 

[William Parcher]

Who is this Apeman on BFF? Apparently he's some primate biologist who has been working in Africa with mountain gorillas, and yet he seems to not think outright that the PGF shows a guy in a suit. He has been playing the Patty Game with an inclination to affirm ideas that nothing about the figure can be shown to be something other than what you might see in a gorilla. We know he is a scientist and I'm wondering if he is of the same ilk as Meldrum. They have spent time in universities and the field and just can't look at the PGF and think "That's a guy in a suit."

Are we all supposed to look at their resumes, look at what they say about the PGF, and then step back with a whoa-better-rethink-this-thing because these college guys are leaning towards PGF authenticity? If a college guy thinks that Patty is a Bigfoot should we oughta-betcha-safe harbor think the same?

My personal opinion is to put Meldrum, Apeman & Goodall in the same rowboat. They almost certainly do good scientific work with known apes. But when it comes to this very special hypothetical hominoid ape (Bigfoot), they are as woo woo woo as any other woo woo woo. The credentials vanish when you woo about woo.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Goodall sums it up when she says she ' wants ' Bigfoot to be real ...

 

[William Parcher]

X Zone Radio at 10pm EST.

What a freaking joke of a radio show. I'm listening to this Rob McConnell and he can't even edit out his comments to his "producers". Yeah, he's running his own show live and uncensored. Heironimus isn't answering his call to do the show that he previously agreed to do. Where is Bob? Okay, so Rob instead goes on with a somewhat skeptical commentary about PGF/Bigfoot and asks for callers. Here we go live with the call-in Pattycakes. First caller asks how a human head fits into Patty's head. It doesn't fit right? Here we go...

 

[William Parcher]

This idiot talk show host just gave out Bob Heironimus' home phone number to the entire audience because he doesn't realize that all of his comments to his producer are being heard by us listeners. It's fun to listen because it is so dysfunctional and bizarre. Okay, let's listen to more callers who are Bigfoot believers. Where is Bob? Oh my.

 

[William Parcher]

Yeah Bob is finally on. Go Bob go!

 

[rgann]

Who is this Apeman on BFF? Apparently he's some primate biologist who has been working in Africa with mountain gorillas, and yet he seems to not think outright that the PGF shows a guy in a suit. He has been playing the Patty Game with an inclination to affirm ideas that nothing about the figure can be shown to be something other than what you might see in a gorilla.

William

To me that was one of the considerations that dashed my nostalgic hopes that the PGF was authentic.

I have seen countless gorilla/patty comparison images with similar skin folds, bare spots, lumps etc. However the point I got from all these exercises was that a gorilla/hairy monster suit has certain tell tale signs (as per FX guys) and looking at Patty the accumulation of the various signifiers says it’s a suit. It’s in the amount of signifiers that is the give away. What I really would like to see is a list with all the suit signs and see if I can find one primate images that matches all these signs, I am doubtful, the fact that there are numerous suit signs in Patty and that if someone can find “one off” similar primate pictures is not an indication Patty is a primate but that the original suit design was based on putting fur on a human being which in turn will have many of the characteristics of other primates, hence the deception/effect.

To me its similar to the Virgin Mary in the tortilla bit, yes the silhouette appears to be similar to an artists sketch/rendering of a woman but given that we have no images of the original Virgin, why assume it’s her? So yes there is a hairy dude walking thru the PGF that looks like the way an FX artist would build a suit, but since we don’t have an image or a body why assume its Patty?

Rick

 

[William Parcher]

BH just dropped a bombshell. He says that Gimlin told him face-to-face that he's been lying about the PGF all along and isn't going to stop now. It's the first time we've explicitly heard BH say that Gimlin is lying with intent to hoax and he intends to continue to do so. How long can this last? The jig is up and Bob really was Patty.

 

[William Parcher]

Sorry for giving this blow-by-low commentary of the radio show. Bob Heironimus just launched a bombshell. He says that he has become friendly again with Gimlin after the Greg Long book. He said that he went to Gimlin and suggested that they both come out to admit the hoax. Gimlin told him no and that he had been lying from day one and and isn't about to stop lying. He didn't say something to BH like "We did put you in the suit, but you don't know that Joe Blow also wore the suit and he is the guy we used in the film."

So Roger Knights, et al... you need to stop talking about red horsehides, a massive IM index and an unhaman walk. Right now you need to go directly to Bob Gimlin and ask him if BH is making up a new lie about him where he says that he's just gonna keep on hoaxing everybody. You have got to ask Bob Gimlin about this huge claim that Heironimus just made on live radio.

The question of the authenticity of the PGF is now boiling down to the personal neighborhood conversations between the two Bobs.

 

[William Parcher]

Bob's live unscripted testimony and honest demeanor is totally devastating to Pattycakes. They have got to pray that he doesn't continue to offer himself to these live interview/question shows. Good God, the PGF is a fake just like we thought it was. The guy in the suit was Bob Heironimus, and Gimlin agrees in private conversation to him. Shame shame shame!

Ha ha ha. It's a joke right? They will still believe won't they? Ha ha ha. The real joke is on the skeptics for thinking that when the guy who wore the suit comes forward that everyone will get the Patterson joke. Ha ha ha. Let's all just laugh.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think my post was taken way too seriously...

You think that BH did wear a suit and was filmed by Patterson. You further think that some other guy (we'll call him Joe Blow) also wore a suit and was filmed by Patterson.

Not really, no. I care not a whit who was in the suit, actually. I came up with that theory very early on whilst battling with Lu and Beckjord.

I will say that I do think it's unlikely that there would only be one take and no rehearsals or practicing, and that it's unlikely that Patterson would have gotten the look and basic fit of the suit right without any trial and error.

We know for a fact that Patterson practiced shooting scenes for the movie, including casting tracks.

I don't believe they all showed up at the creek for the first time and bingo they had the PGF as we see it today in one try.

The counter to that might well be that they had to do it in a short time because logging crews were all over the joint and they might have been spotted...except that there is no record of a crew running into them at all while they were there as far as I know.

Does it seem odd that Laverty and crew are supposedly all over the area, to the point of visiting the exact spot the next day, yet Laverty's crew never runs into the two at their camps? Maybe not. I dunno...

 

[RayG]

Since we have neither Patty nor any suit, does it really matter what BH or BG say about a 40 year-old incident?

No matter how convincing, earnest, or honest BH sounds, I need more evidence than him saying it's so.

At this point, unless he comes up with the suit, BH's recollections are no better than anyone else that has a story to tell about bigfoot.

RayG