• 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.

The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kit, Im still doubtful of the film itself, leaning towards hoax, But wasnt prohaska supposedly involved with the suit?
 
Testimony shouldnt be accepted either way to support the case. Why dont you focus on the testimony that argue against your belief?
 
Of course Kitz! Patterson was nothing more than a little woo who got so obsessed with the bigfoot topic he faked some tracks.
 
makaya325 said:
Testimony shouldnt be accepted either way to support the case. Why dont you focus on the testimony that argue against your belief?
Click to expand...

That just makes zero sense, too. Testimony shouldn't be accepted to support a case? Say what?? Can you imagine trying to bring any investigation to resolution under such principles?

What you don't do is accept hearsay. You don't accept testimony in a vacuum. I do not do that. I accept BH's testimony because it is reasonably borne out by the relevant facts. I do not accept either Patterson or Gimlin's testimony because it is in contradiction with eachother on key issues and inconsistent with the established facts.
 
bob h also has alot of contradictions and keeps changing the story. If it was a suited man, it was probably some larger man
 
makaya325 said:
Wheres the proof that patterson tricked people? Not the pgf. Bob H is also full of it
Click to expand...

makaya325 said:
Of course Kitz! Patterson was nothing more than a little woo who got so obsessed with the bigfoot topic he faked some tracks.
Click to expand...

I'll just keep those together. So now that you've taken the appropriate 180 from doubting Patterson's deceit to accepting it you can have a good look at what BH is really saying.
 
makaya325 said:
Kitz, about what? the time? what else?
Click to expand...

Basic details of the encounter, for example. Such as one story about nimbly sliding off the back of a rearing horse while one-handed retrieving the camera versus being fell on and trapped by the horse, crushing a stirrup which is show later to support the story, then wrenching free from under and running around the horse to extracate the camera.
 
kitakaze said:
Basic details of the encounter, for example. Such as one story about nimbly sliding off the back of a rearing horse while one-handed retrieving the camera versus being fell on and trapped by the horse, crushing a stirrup which is show later to support the story, then wrenching free from under and running around the horse to extracate the camera.
Click to expand...

Don't loose sight of the fact that perhaps P&G hoaxed the film but hoax or no hoax both were able horsemen. A couch potato forum hound may find a skittish horse incident and fall as a situation that may leave them helpless/useless for a period of minutes or longer depending on potential injury if any. However P & G if nothing else were cowboys and just like the kid who skids out his dirt bike and gets right back on it and tears off it is entirely reasonable that Patterson was none the worse for the wear and with the adrenaline of the moment was able to get the job done as he claims. If indeed the job went as claimed.
 
But which was it? Bailed with horse, broke stirrup, showed the talk show host or did one-handed Legolas off the horses behind?
 
Those images you sent me kitz show the arms on the subject are incredibly long compared to its legs. Sorry, not bob h. More likely its someone who is incredibly inhuman
 
makaya325 said:
bob h also has alot of contradictions and keeps changing the story. If it was a suited man, it was probably some larger man
Click to expand...

Damn, where's Sweaty and his funky line-drawings when we finally need him??!!!!
 
Last edited:
Patterson was a braggart and a show off, as well. My guess is that much of what we have heard about him, including being an experienced cowboy and an able horseman and hunter, etc., is a lot of bull.
 
Speaking of Inhumans.
Jerry Romney (I almost typed Mitt Romney)...
Well that just took away my thought, I'll try again later.
 
Crowlogic said:
Don't loose sight of the fact that perhaps P&G hoaxed the film but hoax or no hoax both were able horsemen. A couch potato forum hound may find a skittish horse incident and fall as a situation that may leave them helpless/useless for a period of minutes or longer depending on potential injury if any. However P & G if nothing else were cowboys and just like the kid who skids out his dirt bike and gets right back on it and tears off it is entirely reasonable that Patterson was none the worse for the wear and with the adrenaline of the moment was able to get the job done as he claims. If indeed the job went as claimed.
Click to expand...

Since I grew up on a large working cattle ranch - which I now own - I can confidently say that I have had a lot of experience with horses. (pics of ranch and horses available on the BFF)
A couch potato forum hound as you so eloquently put it - I am not!
Therefore - I can tell you that your explanation is pretty lame.
If Patterson was stupid enough to get his leg/foot caught in a fall and the adrenaline of the moment enabled him to extricate his foot from a bent stirrup caused by his horse falling onto its side - where were the signs of the injury after the andrenaline wore off?
The force applied to bend a stirrup would be the same force applied to Patterson's foot, ankle and lower leg (especially since he used a long stirrup set-up according to all the photos I've seen).
Try having a 1000 pound horse fall on your leg in rocky terrain and see how your leg feels - andrenaline or not!
The fact is - experienced western riders usually ride with a long stirrup set-up and only rest the balls of their feet in the stirrup so that they do not get their foot caught in a fall.
Although Patterson was a bronc rider and they ride with their foot more "home" (jammed in further to the heel) he would not have been riding that way in the terrain they were in due to the inherent problems associated with that postion. It decreases the shock absorbing ability of the ankle and that makes your knees sore and causes muscle stiffness in your leg. Plus - the likelihood of getting hung up during a fall is greatly increased and that usually leads to serious injury or death. Not something that any experienced rider would want in a long trail ride.
Therefore - I find it difficult to believe that an experienced western rider would get their foot caught in the stirrup - much less be able to survive a fall that bent the stirrup and trapped their foot without injury to the leg, foot, and ankle.

Since Patterson obviously made up the story about the bent stirrup (and did not even bother to tell Gimlin beforehand and surprised him by springing it on him in a live radio interview) - the point is moot anyway. :p
 
makaya325 said:
bob h also has alot of contradictions and keeps changing the story. If it was a suited man, it was probably some larger man
Click to expand...

Well, the short simple truth is that all 3 versions differ not only internally to the story itself but against each other as well.

The problem is that all 3 were basically allowed to tell their version in an interview format rather than an atmosphere with cross examination.

Like Rock said- where are the injuries RP should have had? Where are the footprints where the horse fell ( dont say an animal that size didnt leave a mark)

and so forth
 
Is the claim that Patterson's foot was in the stirrup when the horse landed on the stirrup, or is he claiming his foot was not in the stirrup when the stirrup got bent?
 
GT/CS said:
Is the claim that Patterson's foot was in the stirrup when the horse landed on the stirrup, or is he claiming his foot was not in the stirrup when the stirrup got bent?
Click to expand...

The version I remember ( subject to error of course) was that his foot was in it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom