• 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.
makaya325 said:
A claim is a claim. Bobs claim is to some out of the ordinary. Why cant you consider an alternative?
Click to expand...

I never said I accepted BH's claim. I clearly stated that both (BH and PG) could be lying. I also said it was possible that one was lying and that one might not quite recall the details to everyone's satisfaction. It is my opinion that BH's story is at least more credible than PG simply because it does not require the existence of a creature nobody seems to be able to locate. If it were a unicorn in the film, would you have believed it to be real? What about an elf, mastadon, or T-Rex? What makes Bigfoot more believable than somebody saying they were the guy in the suit made to look like bigfoot?

That is what I am driving at when addressing the testimonies involved. One is simply more believable based on what has been presented. We do know that the film can be only one of two things, a guy in a suit or a real honest to goodness bigfoot creature (correct me if there is another option). Which is more likely? BH may or may not be the guy in the suit but it still can be some other guy in a suit.
 
SweatyYeti said:
I'd love to see an in-depth interview with both of them together.

Having them talking directly to each other would probably be very revealing...since we know, with 100% certainty, that at least one of them is being dishonest.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be great. Why is it that Bob Heironimus is interested in making this happen and Bob Gimlin is not. He can't face his old friend in front of a mic?

I don't want to reveal specifically what I'd ask him, on a public forum....since he could see, or find out about, the questions ahead of time....and then be able to prepare for them.
The questions concern certain details within the film, and details about the alleged suit.
Click to expand...

I doubt Heironimus reads JREF. I also doubt you have a question he hasn't already answered to the best of his knowledge.
 
makaya325 said:
Exactly. I dont accept his testimony because of the contradictions.
Click to expand...

You then neither accept Patterson and Gimlin's testimony because of the contradictions.

However, my gut feeling is that Janos Prohaska had something to do with the film.
Click to expand...

Based on what? From reading your posts I think one can conclude when it comes to Bigfoot, you don't know what you feel.
 
makaya325 said:
Look on wikipedia, under the pgf, under his name
Click to expand...

Uh, no. It's your claim so you need to prove it. Besides, I asked you for the one you find to have the most glaring contradictions. IOW, I am asking for your opinion.
 
Last edited:
GT/CS said:
Uh, no. It's your claim so you need to prove it. Besides, I asked you for the one you find to have the most glaring contradictions. IOW, I am asking for your opinion.
Click to expand...

from wikipedia:

Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that Patterson said that he manufactured the suit from a "real dark brown" horse hide.[67]
Morris reports that the suit was a rather expensive ($450) dark brown model with fur made of Dynel, a synthetic material. Long writes that Morris "used Dynel solely in the sixties--and was using brown Dynel in 1967".[68]
Heironimus described the suit as having no metal pieces and an upper "torso part" that he donned "like putting on a T-shirt."[69] At Bluff Creek he put on "the top."[70] Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring.
Morris made a one-piece union suit with a metal zipper up the back, and into which one stepped.[71]
Heironimus described the suit as having hands and feet that were attached to the arms and legs.
Morris made a suit whose hands and feet were separate pieces. Long speculates that Patterson riveted or glued these parts to the suit, but offers no evidence to support this idea.
Morris suggested to Patterson to add football shoulder pads if he wanted to "bulk up" the costume; Heironimus also recalled the costume having shoulder pads.
 
Ask yourself this: Bob H doesnt even know where the film was took, but gimlin and patterson did? hmmm
 
makaya325 said:
Astro, why cant you CONSIDER it being a real bf?
Click to expand...

Because there is no evidence to suggest that BF exists other than in legend. We have no bodies and we have no real evidence that withstands any sort of scrutiny. You can state that the NW is so vast that BF bodies can not be found but we can also say the same for unicorn's, elves, mastadons, t-rex's, etc. The argument that BF might exist because it evades detection can be also applied with those examples. I agree they are extreme but isn't BF an extreme? What evidence for BF is better than the evidence for Unicorns?
 
makaya325 said:
from wikipedia:

Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that Patterson said that he manufactured the suit from a "real dark brown" horse hide.[67]
Morris reports that the suit was a rather expensive ($450) dark brown model with fur made of Dynel, a synthetic material. Long writes that Morris "used Dynel solely in the sixties--and was using brown Dynel in 1967".[68]
Heironimus described the suit as having no metal pieces and an upper "torso part" that he donned "like putting on a T-shirt."[69] At Bluff Creek he put on "the top."[70] Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring.
Morris made a one-piece union suit with a metal zipper up the back, and into which one stepped.[71]
Heironimus described the suit as having hands and feet that were attached to the arms and legs.
Morris made a suit whose hands and feet were separate pieces. Long speculates that Patterson riveted or glued these parts to the suit, but offers no evidence to support this idea.
Morris suggested to Patterson to add football shoulder pads if he wanted to "bulk up" the costume; Heironimus also recalled the costume having shoulder pads.
Click to expand...


You are comparing the statements of Morris and BH. Are you stating that Morris is accurate and BH is not? Or is BH accurate and Morris not? For one to be lying in your case, the other has to be telling the truth. Therefore, you seem to be accepting the idea that a suit was used.
 
makaya325 said:
from wikipedia:

Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that Patterson said that he manufactured the suit from a "real dark brown" horse hide.[67]
Click to expand...

Does this mean that Patterson actually confessed to creating a hoax?

Bob H doesnt even know where the film was took
Click to expand...

Of course he knows where the film was taken. A sandbar on Bluff Creek. He never said it was shot anywhere else!
 
Astro, hairs thats defy explanation, scat, tracks, vocalizations, sightings. etc all cant be considered?
 
makaya325 said:
Ask yourself this: Bob H doesnt even know where the film was took, but gimlin and patterson did? hmmm
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm....If you went to an isolated wooded area once and then were asked 30-40 years later, where you went, would you be able to get it right? I don't know but I am willing to give somebody the benefit of the doubt under such circumstances.
 
makaya325 said:
hairs thats defy explanation?
Click to expand...

By who's determination? Feel free to present a study/paper that suggests a hair defies explanation.

makaya325 said:
scat?
Click to expand...

Has it been identified as coming from a real bigfoot? Feel free to provide a study of Scat that proves it came from bigfoot. There is a lot of scat in the woods (don't bears live in the woods or is that the Pope? I get confused).

makaya325 said:
tracks?
Click to expand...

They can be faked. Can you present any that could not be?

makaya325 said:
vocalizations?
Click to expand...

I saw a program where a BF hunter was able to sound like a bigfoot vocalization. Does that mean he is part bigfoot or could these "vocalizations" be faked or might be something else other than bigfoot? Show me a film of bigfoot making these vocalizations and I might consider it as possible. However, you have to demonstrate the film is not a fake and that it is a real live bigfoot being filmed.

makaya325 said:
sightings?
Click to expand...

People see a lot of things. I have seen sightiings of aliens, vampires, werewolves, elves, fairies, angels, demons, etc over the course of human history. That does not make them real. This goes with the weight of testimony regarding the extraordinary nature of the "sighting".

I think you are getting off topic at this point.
 
makaya325 said:
Astro, about the unicorn, why cant it have been a mutation or mistaken identity?
Click to expand...

But we haven't found such a mutation. As for the mistaken identity, can't the same be said for Bigfoot sightings? Could a bear from a distance look like bigfoot if it stands on it's hind legs?
 
Astro, what is it that a bear hunter sees thats 8ft 800 lbs up close? Obviously not their imagination. Astro, unlike most cryptids, not alot of things resemble a monstrous 8ft 800 lbs primate, unless its a freak of nature human with some disorder
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom