• 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.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
kitakaze said:
Crowlogic, you bring bigfoot apologism to new heights.

Yeah, that Heironimus. What a joker, hey, guys? Ho ho... Here comes another one. Will these guys never learn? Ha ha!

What's that?

No other has claimed to be in the suit?

Heironimus is in Patterson's film?

*crickets*
Click to expand...

What is bigfoot apologism?
 
William Parcher said:
So, Bob Heironimus says that it was shot on a Thursday - but he does not say (seems not to recall) if it was the first week, or the second week of October.

Given this, Bob Heironimus is saying that the film of him wearing the suit at Bluff Creek was taken on either October 5, or October 12.

Here is is again for anyone to cut and paste anywhere they want on the World Wide Web...

On March 14, 2007, during the Tom Biscardi "Bigfoot Live" radio show, Bob Heironimus said that Roger Patterson filmed him walking in a Bigfoot suit across a sandbar at Bluff Creek, California on either October 5, 1967, or October 12, 1967.
Click to expand...

Looking at the nearby Eureka paper for that time frame, it may have been the second date. Around October 5th, the high temperatures were in the low 70s. However, around October 12th, the temperatures were in the 80s.
 
kitakaze said:
How about 'making inordinate excuses to defend the validity of alledged bigfoot evidence in the face of facts pointing to the contrary'.
Click to expand...

How about not overestimating what my beliefs are concerning the Sasquatch/Bigfoot issue.
 
More from the Tom Biscardi radio show March 2007:

MK Davis has uploaded a number of still frames and animated .gifs to the program website, so that all listeners and guests can see them. Davis leads the audience to view a two-frame animated gif showing what he says are moving lips that open and close. This is one of those color-layers-removed things (Peyote Vision). Heironimus can't see these things on the website like others can, because he is not in front of a computer during the radio interview.

Tom Biscardi after viewing gif: "You actually see lips move."

Philip Morris can't see this either, because he doesn't know how to operate the computer near him (says his grand daughter could if she was there).

Tom Biscardi: "Well, let's ask Bob."

Tom Biscardi to BH: "I know you can't see this...What do you say about this? You actually see the lips move."

BH: "...if I can remember right, the lips didn't move, unless it was mine underneath it."

Tom to BH: "Are you saying that there's the possibility that the lips did move?"

BH: "I have no idea. I have no idea. As far as I know the lips didn't move."

After hearing this exchange, my impression is that according to Bob Heironimus, the mask did not have some sort of internal mechanism to cause the lips or mouth to move at the control of the wearer. His suggestion that "unless it was mine underneath", sounds to me like he allows the possibility that if he moved his own lips maybe the mouth area of the mask would twitch or something. But that is nothing like a mechanical mouth. In earlier interviews he did describe a gap between his own face and the face of the mask. So it seems that even if he did move his lips, the mask would not twitch or something. He seems to be firm that the lips of the mask did not move by any intentional design.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
Evasion noted. You're a funny one, Crowlogic. Yes, whyever should you address responses regarding your claims and beliefs?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. Why should I explain anything to you? What makes my view of interest to you? And what gives you any dispensation to demand an answer. I haven't seen you act in any fashion on any of the threads I've seen you post that implys that you're anything other than belittleing condensending smart*&%@.
 
Last edited:
Astrophotographer said:
Looking at the nearby Eureka paper for that time frame, it may have been the second date. Around October 5th, the high temperatures were in the low 70s. However, around October 12th, the temperatures were in the 80s.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake. The pdf was blurred. These are the weather reports for the dates in question and the weather report from the paper.

October 5, 1967
Variable clouds today, tonight and tomorrow, mainly today. Chance of a few showers in the area early today, mainly in or near the hills. Fair otherwise
this afternoon through Friday. No major change in temperatures. High both
days in 60's lows tonight near 50.
Eureka temp for October 5 was 49-66
(Eureka is on the coast. High Temperature inland at Red Bluff was 71)

October 13, 1967
Variable cloudiness today with a chance of showers this afternoon followed by a clearing trend tonight and becomeing mostly fair tonight. Not much change in temperature. High both days in the 60s. Lows tonight near 50.
Eureka temp for October 12 was 50-59
(Eureka is on the coast. High Temperature inland at Red Bluff was 83)
 
Crowlogic said:
You didn't answer my question. Why should I explain anything to you?
Click to expand...

Don't think of it as being about me. Think of it as substantiating your statements, claims, beliefs, etc.

Crowlogic said:
What makes my view of interest to you?
Click to expand...

1) The fallaciousness.

2) The desire for the PGF to be real overriding objectivity.

Crowlogic said:
And what gives you any dispensation to demand an answer.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to my demand?

Crowlogic said:
I haven't seen you act in any fashion on any of the threads I've seen you post that implys that you're anything other than belittleing condensending smart*&%@.
Click to expand...

I would suggest sticking it to me by substantiating your claims would be more effective than poorly spelt name calling.
 
Your suggestions are meaningless to me. But had your manners been better we may have found that we have many of the same nails driven into many of the same things. But you're here for sport and nothing more. This exchange is over.
 
Last edited:
Crowlogic said:
Your suggestions are meaningless to me.
Click to expand...

Good choice with the edit because the attempt at a psych evaluation was rather bad:

Well I am thinking its about you. I'm thinking I've rattled your cage and perhaps you're second guessing yourself
Click to expand...
If you spent as much time substantiating claims about the PGF as you do with the Dr. Phil than we might start getting somewhere.
Crowlogic said:
But you here for sport and nothing more.
Click to expand...
More erroneous claims from you. And rather easy to deflate. If I was here for 'sport' and nothing more than I wouldn't waste the hours of effort it took to do the research for the thread on Native American myths/traditions.
Crowlogic said:
This exchange is over.
Click to expand...
After all the backflips to avoid qualifying your claims I can tell you that that statement is absolutely correct. Bye.
 
Thanks for that great weather info, Astro. Is there a typo in your date (October 13), or could you not get it for the 12th?
 
Most here know that I do believe that Bob wore the suit in the PGF. I don't keep it a secret. Some other PGF skeptics here don't agree, or have not been presented with enough evidence from him to sway them. Some think he may have worn a suit at Bluff Creek, but not on the specific occasion that became the PGF. I understand and respect all of that.

If he never did go to Bluff Creek at all and is simply making up this story, I find it interesting that he would give two specific dates and also say "it was hot." That seems risky unless he had some way of determining what the temp was like there on those dates. It could have been that it wasn't anything like "hot" (still a subjective term) at Bluff Creek on those days. He was specific about the days of the week that P&G got there and then himself also. But he can't pin down the first or second week of October. I wonder why he can't or won't do that. I guess it could show honesty in the inability to actually recall or determine; or if a false story... it's intended to cast a wide net.

Maybe my belief in him brings bias and cherry-picking to his story. It feels right to me when I read and hear his testimonies even though it is not perfect at all. I don't think I would be able to have total recall (especially to the degree that PGF believers demand of Bob) of an event that happened many decades ago. This is even true for Bob Gimlin. Whether he pulled a hoax with Roger, or not, he should not be held to perfect recall. People just can't do that forty years later.

Bob Heironimus is the only person to ever publicly confess to wearing the Patty suit in the PGF. He could be lying, or just wrong about that. Somebody on BFF recently claimed that lots of guys have confessed, and there will probably be more in the future. To a skeptic, that is an unfortunate feature of Bigfootery.

If Bob Gimlin were to ever confess to hoaxing the PGF, I would hope that he would say something about the other Bob. If he did acknowledge that BH was Patty, I would also hope that they could get together to tell the story to everyone. If that would happen, we may all learn of certain inaccuracies of recollection that both may have. Gimlin may recall a hell of a lot more about the actual suit than Heironimus does. Of course, any disagreements between them could be seized upon by believer hold-outs as evidence that their joint confession is a hoax. Maybe it would trigger or force others who were involved to confess as well. Inside me, I hope that any lawsuits and legal issues that could follow would be put aside and not pursued.

I don't know. Even skeptics can imagine and dream of things, and ramble on like I just did.
 
Last edited:
I ahve got a question, from what I can see on the picture of diogene any way the original seems to be overexposed or at least not of a good quality (pardon me, I meant the copy of the copy from the copy).

It seems to me all STILLS were re-colored to an extent. What make you crowlogic think that the orange recoloring is more valid than the green one ? From diogenes still both could be valid. Are you not thinking that the orange recoloring is more valid because you assume that the info on the film being made during autumn is valid ? And then in circle logic use the (re-)coloring as info that the film is done in autumn ?

From my point of view with the film quality shown before being reworked/cleaned/recolored , you can't say what color is the foliage of the lowest trees, and even less the rest of the forests.
 
Crowlogic said:
Your suggestions are meaningless to me.
Click to expand...

as are logic,common sense and critical thought.

But had your manners been better.
Click to expand...

Or put a better way..."had you just believed me without needing any substantiation."

But you're here for sport and nothing more. This exchange is over.
Click to expand...

Translation: To you Bigfeetsus is a hobby an interest even...but to me it's clearly the greatest discovery of all time...so seeings how I've been unable to get you to come over to the Dark Side...I'm taking my Bigfeetsus books and going home.
 
Last edited:
Crowlogic said:
What is bigfoot apologism?
Click to expand...

Webster defines it as the activity engaged in by Bigfoot Nation every single time they discuss the PGF or for that matter Bigfeetsus in general.

A good example of same would be this Gimlin was illin so he didn't go to the grand opening of the most anthropologically important film (allegedly) of all time horse puckey.
 
William Parcher said:
Most here know that I do believe that Bob wore the suit in the PGF. I don't keep it a secret. Some other PGF skeptics here don't agree, or have not been presented with enough evidence from him to sway them. Some think he may have worn a suit at Bluff Creek, but not on the specific occasion that became the PGF. I understand and respect all of that.
Click to expand...

I agree completely...I feel the same way about Bob H....I know that I'm biased as well...but given that NO ONE else has confessed to being the monkey....coupled with Bob throwing out dates and estimated times...to me it just fits that what he says is true..that he was the guy in the silly looking suit schlepping across the Bluff Creek sand.

Oh and one other thing and correct me if I'm using the term incorrectly here but...it seems as if Bigfoot fan likes to Data Mine when it comes to the entirety of what skeptics see as what's wrong with pretty much everything involved with the PGF...that is to say they single out one part.....mid tarsal break,compliant gait,muscle movement,timeline.....freeking foliage coloration and try a pinpoint strike on that one thing...bogging the debate down in a shower of minutae in the process...never do they address the inconsistencies and skeptical explanations as a whole....does that make any sense?...and more importantly why do you feel they do this??
 
Profile of a Bigfoot Enthusiast.

In all the digging around and researching that I've been doing for the Native American thread there is this one guy that keeps popping up by the name of Henry Franzoni (Henry James Franzoni III). He's been one of the main figures I've found behind footers correlating indigenous North Americans' myths/traditions and bigfoot. In that regard he was a key contributor to Jeff Glickman's NASI report (I'll go into that more in the Native thread).

As it turns out the guy is a complete eccentric and bigfoot paranormalist and the most lucid of those I've ever seen (sorry Neal). For many of us skeptics it's the footers themselves that often make bigfootery so interesting and I felt compelled to share a bit of this guy's world. The following is a piece he wrote on himself and his experiences and while it is rather lengthy, I really recommend reading it as there really is something in it for everyone from the PGF student to the invisible bigfoot proponent.

Again, I apologize for cut and pasting such a huge chunk of text but I was fairly certain some of the regular members would enjoy it.

http://www.hdbrp.com/An Interview with Henry Franzoni.htm

(photo included)

A view from someplace you haven't been to yet.
by Brother Locust aka Henry Franzoni

I often read the posts here, with fond memories of the search. I began the search once, camping in the woods,packing binoculars and cameras and night vision gear.Playing tapes, baiting, whatever,.. usually waitingall night on mountain peaks quietly. Almost immediately I hooked up with other researchers, hooked up with funds,then I indirectly helped build some very fancy night
vision gear using seismic detectors and microwave relay video transmissions to a home base. This device was placed in a wilderness area for two years. I helped with a $250,000 scientific analysis of the Patterson film that produced a science report, I started a bigfoot discussion list, tried my absolute best to get people(especially scientists and policy makers), to take bigfoot research seriously. I helped some people run a bigfoot incident report 800 number for 5 years,I helped many bigfooters make web sites including Ray Crowe, Peter Byrne, Rene Dahinden, Chris Murphy,Matt Moneymaker, and Ron Morehead. I helped a lot
of bigfooters, all sizes and shapes of bigfooters.I helped investigate 400 sightings in the northwest. I compiled a huge database of sighting reports, I looked for patterns, I made maps, I studied, and studied and studied. I made movies, I became a bigfoot spokesman,I presented my results at symposiums. Some of you probably know who I am by now. I battled for credibility,I argued scientifically with anyone who'd listen.I did the best possible research I could, I constantly evaluated my methodology, I used logic, I used the rules of good thinking, I went out in the woods, I waited by a phone, I went with groups, I went alone.There was a helicopter with a FLIR standing ready if one of us ever found anything. Nevertheless, I must use a pseudonym, I cannot come
forward with what I have to say. What I have to say is too crazy, too unwelcome, not helpful, not something that would help get bigfoot researchers taken seriously.This is part of why I left the scene. I no longer could participate in something where I had to present a false face all the time. It was too much for me.I had to consider people's systems of belief, people's cherished notions, people's sensibilities; what people thought was plausible; what they thought was not plausible. What was believable. I could play
the game, I could listen and understand what people could accept, and what they could not accept. I respected other people's points of view. I evaluated what was known and unknown, I knew what was speculation and what wasn't. I'm not a total idiot.
But what I have to say, from my perspective, is the truth I learned along the way, the part of the puzzle I figured out. It's not the whole picture. It strikes me as funny. It strikes me as ironic. All the arguments out there about bigfoot's nature: kill, no kill, ape-like/person-like,intelligent/just an animal, flesh and blood/supernatural, real/hoax, misidentified animal/uncataloged animal /perceptual failure/mass hallucination/sociological phenomenon/cultural phenomenon/wishful thinking...well, you know what "they" say; a man convinced against his will remains of the same opinion.All of the major raging arguments can be answered with one simple answer;
BOTH seemingly opposed viewpoints are true. ALL of the above theories have some truth to them, after a fashion.
When you can understand how these disparate viewpoints and raging arguments and hardened
positions and exclusive theories can all be true at the same time, you are on your way to understanding what I have learned about the bigfeet... really.I can't tell you how funny I find this.No doubt I just lost your attention, you might besaying "it's not possible, it's not plausible,it's ridiculous, it's silly, it's not credible,you're not credible, it's not scientific,it's not helpful, what about Occam's Law of limited imagination?" etc. etc. I always ask myself,"Why bother to tell anyone anything about bigfoot?"Everyone will have to find out for themselves and see with their own eyes or they will not believe me. Why? Because they are sane, rational, normal
human beings who have their critical faculties intact....nothing wrong with that. Some truths about the bigfeet are a self-keeping secret. People are just not ready to accept what I've learned on my personal journey. Just remember, I'd like to think I respect truth as much as anybody. I even respect the fact that we each have our own truths, our own beliefs, our own sense of meaning.
I have personally experienced the flesh and blood animal aspect of bigfeet, up close and personal,I have personally experienced the telepathic aspect of bigfeet, on more than one occasion.I have encountered the sense of humor of intelligent bigfeet, I have communicated with intelligent bigfeet. I have been made fun of by the bigfeet. I have walked right up to a bush with a laughing bigfoot in it, and found nothing at all there. No tracks, no broken branches, nothing. I have seen enough with my own eyes
to know that bigfoot is a flesh and blood animal,AND something else beyond my understanding. Something that acts like an animal, then acts like a scientist. Something that can grunt and laugh, something that can can then reach right into your mind and
communicate with you mind to mind. Something that can shape-shift, something that looks like an ape, then looks like almost anything else. Something that eats raw food like a regular primate, then walks away without leaving any tracks.Something that can move in 3D reality in a very unconventional fashion. When they pass nearby,it can even affect time. It's funny to me that
the simplest explanation is not the correct explanation in this particular case. The correct explanation is rather complicated and even, hah,(don't laugh too hard) multi-dimensional. Or so I think today, after along and sometimes arduous journey. If you have enough direct experience and good fortune and have contact with these beings, you will eventually come around to my way of thinking.
Time is on my side.I have been given many gifts by the bigfeet, the biggest one was understanding of course. One particular physical gift I was given in such a way that I knew who gave it to me.This particular gift was left behind a locked door,and done so without unlocking it in a conventional fashion. I even partially figured out what the gift meant and symbolized.I am under no illusion that my personal experiences will ever rise to the level of "scientific proof".I am also under no illusion that somehow my"credibility" will carry the day and make everyone believe me.This too I find ironic, I am not irrational, I am not particularly stupid, yet my personal experiences fly in the face of almost everything that we "know"is scientifically possible. Experience and proof are two very different things, it is easy to confuse them sometimes. Sometimes you just gotta be true to yourself, and hope for the best. You
know what I mean? At times I like this I console myself with the fact that "truth" has a way of out-lasting falsehoods,...eventually, false assumptions wither on the vine, given enough time, and given enough experience and
good fortune. Science needs data. When the data is scarce, people can hold onto extremist views, they can argue their side of the story, who can prove them wrong? More data... that's what we need. The ever elusive concrete proof just around the corner .To me, the most interesting questions needing more hard data>are these:
1) There is a footprint problem. Sometimes there are too few footprints, sometimes the footprints are deeper than they should be,
sometimes they are shallower than they should be. This is related to a weight problem. The seeming inconsistencies always get explained away, almost always without any hard data. People talk about soil compression and the depth that their boot makes in the same soil, but no one really has any hard data about what weight over what surface area compresses to what
depth.Everyone assumes that they have to leave footprints all the time, yet footprints are seldom found in the proper numbers at
incident locations.
2) There is a location problem. Everyone who studies enough knows where the hot areas are, we know where the hot areas were. We all have our pet theories of where they go, when they go there, where they live, etc. etc. Sightings near population centers and
within urban areas are always explained away by some nearby patch of wilderness. Some areas have had sightings for hundreds of years, yet they are never there when we go there, or if they are, we don't see them but they let us know they are around with some
timely wood cracks or screams or footprints or whatever. Just how long will you have to be in the woods in your "hot area" before you find out why you couldn't find them and get a picture? I can't even venture a guess. Maybe you won't find out. Bigfooters are a very stubborn breed. I really am trying to give you a gift of truth, a hardearned small piece of the puzzle... but few,if any at all, will recognize it as such. Who can blame you? Judging by the conversation on this board,you all obviously have your critical faculties
relatively intact. It's ironic to me that to comprehend what is going on with the bigfeet, one has to realize that almost everything that one knows is wrong. That's what makes this puzzle so hard to solve. all the best folks.
I'll be waiting for you.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom