The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[SweatyYeti]

We do if you are going to claim BH can't fit inside the suit ...

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

 

[Cavemonster]

Your original claim in this thread was that the arm length difference proves that the film of Patty can not be Bob in a suit. To prove your point you would need to show that it is impossible, or at least extremely unlikely for Bob in a suit to look like the Patty image.

1) We've shown that there is a huge margin of error in measurements from photographs.

2)I've also mentioned from personal suit-making experience that a longer arm is no proof that it isn't a man in a suit. That's like saying that Godzilla being taller than most Japanese actors is proof that he wasn't a man in a suit.

So what does the apparent difference in arm lengths prove exactly?

If Patty's arms had been shorter than Bob's, then that would be something for discussion.

 

[GT/CS]

Your original claim in this thread was that the arm length difference proves that the film of Patty can not be Bob in a suit. To prove your point you would need to show that it is impossible, or at least extremely unlikely for Bob in a suit to look like the Patty image.

1) We've shown that there is a huge margin of error in measurements from photographs.

2)I've also mentioned from personal suit-making experience that a longer arm is no proof that it isn't a man in a suit. That's like saying that Godzilla being taller than most Japanese actors is proof that he wasn't a man in a suit.

So what does the apparent difference in arm lengths prove exactly?

If Patty's arms had been shorter than Bob's, then that would be something for discussion.

Excellent point, but be careful with ideas you give to Sweaty. He may provide images and lines showing Patty's arms ARE longer than Bob's.

 

[Cavemonster]

Do you mean shorter?

By the nature of costumes, the only proof that would be meaningful would have to show a shape for Patty that couldn't include the shape of Bob. Any way in which Patty is larger than Bob does not prove anything since by definition a person in a shaggy costume will always be larger than that person's body.

 

[GT/CS]

Do you mean shorter?

By the nature of costumes, the only proof that would be meaningful would have to show a shape for Patty that couldn't include the shape of Bob. Any way in which Patty is larger than Bob does not prove anything since by definition a person in a shaggy costume will always be larger than that person's body.

Ah hell, I did mess that up. Yes, I meant shorter.

 

[captain koolaid]

The problem with Sweaty is he can't understand your arguments. He has bigfoot tunnel vision. What he thinks supports his cause must be right and ANYTHING that contradicts his myopic viewpoint is wrong, no matter how much science and math you use. Sweaty is blinded by "the will to believe".

Or, by the desire to fill pews. I suspect that Sweaty, like many a Bigfoot acolyte, does not really believe in the Boss o' The Woods. They are motivated more by flogging T-shirts, keychains, "expeditions" and pimping books by the Poobahs of Footsville. That, and maintaining face.

PS- Don't forget the fingers, Sweaty.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Cavemonster wrote:

Your original claim in this thread was that the arm length difference proves that the film of Patty can not be Bob in a suit.

Can you find a quote of mine, in which I actually made that claim?

I never have said that.


Cavemonster wrote:

We've shown that there is a huge margin of error in measurements from photographs.

Where exactly has that been shown?

 

[SweatyYeti]

captain koolaid wrote:

PS- Don't forget the fingers, Sweaty.

I haven't forgotten about them. I just haven't had enough time to respond to everything that I've wanted to, between this thread and the "Reliable Evidence" thread.

That was very observant of you, captain, noticing that Patty's fingers don't appear to bend at the middle joint. I noticed it a long time ago, myself.

I don't know why that is, though.

 

[SweatyYeti]

captain koolaid wrote:

I suspect that Sweaty, like many a Bigfoot acolyte, does not really believe in the Boss o' The Woods.

Actually, I think...based on the evidence... that there is a high probability Bigfoot does exist...in North America, British Columbia, and in China ("Wildman").

Also, a couple of weekends ago, I went on a 2-day camping/hiking trip to the Lake George/Whitehall area, in Upstate New York...partly based on the chance of seeing a real, live Bigfeetsus. We didn't see one, unfortunately....

But, I'll be heading back there, on a regular basis....hiking...and hoping.

 

[kitakaze]

Actually, I think...based on the evidence... that there is a high probability Bigfoot does exist...in North America, British Columbia, and in China ("Wildman").

Minor nitpick but given that I had the great fortune to grow up in British Columbia I am inclined to mention the fact that BC is in fact a rather significant portion of North America. Your statement seems to imply a belief otherwise.

Why did you leave out Australia, BTW?

 

[William Parcher]

Bob Gimlin admitted that Bob Heironimus' horse (Chico) was at Bluff Creek. We can confirm that by a filmed scene. BG was riding Chico at Bluff Creek and we can see it on film.

Drew asked the BFF if this is significant (change your opinion of the PGF). For the most part, the answer was "no". The poll and the posted answers show this.

Naw. It was known they knew each other...neighbors, right?

As I understood it, the horse was a young horse that Bob Gimlin was breaking for Bob H. Its what Bob G does. I seem to recall Bob Gimlin saying something about thinking that a few intensive weeks with this horse being good experience for it, so it is only natural that he would take it to Bluff Creek.

I never heard that before. Where can we find this Gimlin testimony? Paul, weren't you the one who lectured that Gimlin didn't show up at the first film showing (DeAtley's basement) because he was sick? I think I read that he didn't show up because he was tired.

Horsey people regularly loan horses - we have a horse that has been out on loan for four years now - the people that keep him will naturally refer to him as 'their' horse, even though he actually belongs to me - thats just the way things are.

When thinking scientifically, I must only use facts I am sorry. The fact that Gimlin admits to riding BobH's horse at Bluff Creek does not prove that he hoaxed the video.

Fair enough. But you are still King Dolt on the BFF. You shouldn't be the one talking about scientific thinking and facts.

The issue/question about Chico at Bluff Creek has come up before. A common response is that Gimlin may have been boarding or training Chico for BH. There are still some unanswered questions:

1. Why would Bob Gimlin be boarding and/or training Chico?

2. Why would BG decide to take Chico on a long trip to California to hunt for a Bigfoot? 2.a. Why wouldn't BG take his own horse to California for a potentially dangerous Bigfoot hunt?

Heironimus says that Chico was taken to Bluff Creek for the hoax Bigfoot filming upon his recommendation.

Gimlin should understand what BH is saying now, and offer his followers some kind of direct and comprehensive refutation of BH's claim. He should say something like, "Bob had agreed to let me take Chico to Bluff Creek to hunt for Bigfoot. I was boarding and/or training Chico for him. He is lying now when he says that Chico was taken on his recommendation for a planned filmed hoax. It's all part of his grand lie about being the person inside a Bigfoot suit filmed by Roger at Bluff Creek, with me as a cohort."

 

[Cavemonster]

Can you find a quote of mine, in which I actually made that claim?
I never have said that.

This thread is for analysis of any evidence which relates to whether or not Bob Heironimus could have been Patty.

That includes:
1) Comparing Patty's apparent body proportions to Bob's....and, by extension, to humans, in general.

*snip*

Here again is one of my favorite comparisons...
Lining-up the eyes, (which had to line-up if Bob was inside the "suit")....and the feet.....Bob's arms come up well short of Patty's.

These two statements combined strongly suggest that you believe that the disparity in apparent arm length in these two photos is evidence that Bob could not have been in the suit.
If I have misinterpreted your point, I apologize and I guess that means we agree that the apparent difference carries no weight as to whether or not Bob was in the suit.

 

[Correa Neto]

Do you mean shorter?

By the nature of costumes, the only proof that would be meaningful would have to show a shape for Patty that couldn't include the shape of Bob. Any way in which Patty is larger than Bob does not prove anything since by definition a person in a shaggy costume will always be larger than that person's body.

Uhm, no. Human proportions can be completely changed by costumes, tiny arms included. Here's some costumes with small arms:

Note Barney's bulging muscles and the absence of seams!

 

[Cavemonster]

Of course I agree.
I'm not saying that shorter arms would prove anything either, mostly that long arms require no explanation. There are possible creature shapes that would make a costume unlikely. You're right in the case of a bigfoot it would be easy to conceal extra arm mass, or to mess with the proportions to create shorter legs. However some shapes, if scaled correctly would preclude a human inside. For instance a one foot tall "littlefoot" would require some video effects to be created by filming a man in a suit.

 

[Correa Neto]

Sweaty would have a point with Patty's possible finger movement only if it's hands were making a complex task such as peeling a banana. Even then he would also have to demonstrate that the arms are actually longer than a human's and not some perspective or costume-building trick. A costume with a diaper butt will give the impression of short femurs and long arms, no mechanical hands needed and an inuman walk as a bonus.

Bring us footage of a bigfoot with long arms eviscerating an elk or opening clams. If the material has provenance, it will be reliable evidence and generate the money and support required by footers.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Minor nitpick but given that I had the great fortune to grow up in British Columbia I am inclined to mention the fact that BC is in fact a rather significant portion of North America. Your statement seems to imply a belief otherwise.

No....it was just a mental error.

Why did you leave out Australia, BTW?

I don't think about Australia very often....or the "Yowie", either.
I haven't read much about the evidence for it, so I don't really have a strong opinion on it.

 

[SweatyYeti]

These two statements combined strongly suggest that you believe that the disparity in apparent arm length in these two photos is evidence that Bob could not have been in the suit.
If I have misinterpreted your point, I apologize and I guess that means we agree that the apparent difference carries no weight as to whether or not Bob was in the suit.

Thanks for the response, Cavemonster.

I'll explain my position on this. In this statement of mine...

Here again is one of my favorite comparisons...
Lining-up the eyes, (which had to line-up if Bob was inside the "suit")....and the feet.....Bob's arms come up well short of Patty's.

....I was only saying that Bob's arms appear to be shorter, in proportion to the body, than Patty's arms are.

And, if that is the case...it follows that for Bob to have been Patty, he would have needed some type of hand extension in the suit...with a remote-control device to make the fingers bend.

I guess that means we agree that the apparent difference carries no weight as to whether or not Bob was in the suit.

No, we don't agree on that.

The way I see it, if a remote-controlled device had to have been used in the suit, then the likelihood, or probability, of Patty being a "suit" goes down. Because, the more complex the "suit" explanation becomes (to account for all the movements we see with Patty), the less likely it is that the 'suit theory' is the correct explanation.

Enter... "Occam's Razor"...

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

 

[captain koolaid]

....I was only saying that Bob's arms appear to be shorter, in proportion to the body, than Patty's arms are.

And, if that is the case...it follows that for Bob to have been Patty, he would have needed some type of hand extension in the suit...with a remote-control device to make the fingers bend...

No, he would not "have needed" a mechanical device to produce the "flex". A device COULD have been used, but it is not needed to explain the apparent movement. It is much more likely that the "finger flexing" was not intentional, and is actually the result of an empty rubber glove striking the padding of the thigh during the arm swing.

...The way I see it, if a remote-controlled device had to have been used in the suit, then the likelihood, or probability, of Patty being a "suit" goes down. Because, the more complex the "suit" explanation becomes (to account for all the movements we see with Patty), the less likely it is that the 'suit theory' is the correct explanation.

Enter... "Occam's Razor"...

Occam's razor? With Roger Patterson's B-movie creature feature? It is incredible that the "flex" could be considered to be some sort of validation of a "Real Patty", and that a mechanical extension is too outlandish an explanation. Rather than help the PGF cause, the "finger flex" is a damning piece of evidence. It demonstrates not the "articulation" of a real, unidentified, bipedal primate, but the obvious use of a costume glove. It doesn't really matter whether BH's arms are long enough to fit his fingers into the glove's fingers or not, regardless of the "proportions". Neither BH, nor a "real Bigfoot" could physically move their fingers in such a manner- unless BH, or Patty, is using mechanical extensions, or simply bumping an entirely empty glove against his/her thigh. Why would Patty stick a fake rubber glove, on the end of her very real Sasquatch mitt?

If you apply Occam's Razor, objectively, ask yourself- What is more likely to have produced that impossible "flex"?

A fellow in a suit with a glove containing no bones? Or Bigfoot wearing a glove containing no bones?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hey...I got some super bad news for Bob Heironimus, and his followers........courtesy of this still frame...

Here is the frame blown-up...with an image of Bob next to it...showing the large difference in their shoulder widths...(Note: These images are not scaled exactly right. Bob's image needs to be down-sized a bit)...

Matching-up the size of the footprint casts Roger made with Patty's foot....Patty looks rather wide, and massive...next to Roger...

I'll be posting some more comparisons, using this frame......and, I must say....it ain't lookin' too good for Bob.

 

[William Parcher]

Here is the frame blown-up...with an image of Bob next to it...showing the large difference in their shoulder widths... I must say....it ain't lookin' too good for Bob.

It ain't lookin' too good for Charlie Gemora either. He must have lied about being in those Hollywood gorilla costumes. The shoulders don't lie, and they will tell you who is the liar. Isn't that right, Sweety?