The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[JcR]

I did these some time ago, But figured it was already established that
these characters were in the second reel film. Oh well for what it's worth.
certainly looks like Merrit's horse.
Betcha the horse is a straight shooter.




Don't know what happened to all my other pictures.

 

[William Parcher]

JcR, we established rider and horse identities about 2 years ago (all in the 411 PGF). Though a number of people claimed that that is Roger (behind BH and the packhorse), it is very easy to identify him as Jerry Merritt. It was the emergence of the photo of all those guys together on horseback (with names attached) that allowed people to know who is who. I think that actors photo first appeared in print in Greg Long's book.

I don't think it's appropriate to call this a scene from the "second reel". It was shot in Washington months before the Bluff Creek thingee. To claim that this is from the second reel (loaded into camera just after the Patty encounter) is to claim that Patterson filmed Merritt & Heironimus in Washington after he filmed Patty.

 

[William Parcher]

Don't know what happened to all my other pictures.

Uh oh. Did you lose the images in your attachment gallery? If so, I think mangler had the same thing happen to him. It seems that when you reach a certain maximum capacity, it automatically discards the whole lot. I could be wrong about that. Dfoot also ran into limitations with attachments.

Maybe you should start using an image host site like Photo Bucket.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, what are folks who don't see any "apparent calf-muscle movement" supposed to say to that?

If someone says they don't think there is even any 'apparent movement' on the back of Patty's leg...as in this animated-gif, for example...

....then they're free to provide a reason as to why they think that's the case.


In the gif I just posted.....the outline, the shape, of the back of the leg changes, indicating some movement. If someone disagrees with me on that.....that's fine. I don't care.
If they can demonstrate the reason for their thinking....then I'll be happy to consider it.

If they reply to you at all, are they agreeing with you that it's "apparent calf-muscle movement"?

What they would be agreeing to would depend on exactly what they say.

How would you reply if you did not think it was "apparent calf-muscle movement"?

If I didn't think something even appeared to be moving (let alone actually moving)....I would have a definite reason to think that....and I would state my reason, very clearly.

Is it your intent to make it seem like those who reply to you see "apparent calf-muscle movement" where you see it?

If I get the meaning of your question correctly.....no, I'm not attempting to 'railroad' someone's response into an agreement with anything I've said.

 

[LTC8K6]

If someone says they don't think there is even any 'apparent movement' on the back of Patty's leg...as in this animated-gif, for example...

That's not what I asked. You left out "calf-muscle". Deliberately.

I won't bother to ask again.

You continue to attempt to dictate the terms of the conversation.

 

[kitakaze]

If someone says they don't think there is even any 'apparent movement' on the back of Patty's leg...as in this animated-gif, for example...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattysToesAG12.gif[/qimg]



....then they're free to provide a reason as to why they think that's the case.


In the gif I just posted.....the outline, the shape, of the back of the leg changes, indicating some movement. If someone disagrees with me on that.....that's fine. I don't care.
If they can demonstrate the reason for their thinking....then I'll be happy to consider it.

One of the first problems right off the bat is who should care at all what SweatyYeti would be happy to consider. He's pretty selective about what he will consider, anyway. You can put some clear indicators of the PGF being a hoax in front of him and rather than consider it at all, it appears to have some kind of dumbing effect on him.

"Hey, Sweaty. Here's three clear proofs of Bob Heironimus' involvement with Roger Patterson and long-time friend and neighbour, Bob Gimlin. What do you say to that?" ... *crickets* I predict in Sweaty's response to this post that no effort be made to address this.

This doesn't seem like a person very interested in the truth. Also, in Sweaty's 2 frame gif, he is so determined that there is rippling muscles and that it is there for all to see like he does that he misses other details. Going by the same level by which Sweaty is claiming muscle movement I can see other movement. In the image "4" on Patty's left leg as she's moving forward there are distinct wrinkles or lumps along the front shin and upper thigh that smooth out in image "5." In fact, if I was inclined to draw lines on Patty's leg, those could be shown quite clearly. I could then interpret this as loose fabric being pulled taut with the forward stretching movement. I can then say that that I have clearly demonstrated "apparent fabric movement" and demand that someone show me a real leg showing movement comparable to what is seen in the PGF. It is the scenario I will enforce and anyone who doesn't provide what I ask for is failing to support their real Bigfoot ideas. That is the same kind of idiocy that Sweaty muddles around with.

The point being is that Sweaty carries on about as if his 2 frame gif shows a compelling demonstration of muscle movement yet he clearly has not provided sufficient data to make such claims or that they are supported over explanations involving a suit and a human leg in a suit. Sweaty is hoping people here aren't smart enough to call his false scenario of "I've shown muscle movement, prove me wrong."

The fact is that Sweaty is dithering because he has no reliable evidence that indicates a real Bigfoot over a man in a suit. Not one person here should let Sweaty think he can manipulate the terms of discussion.

 

[mangler]

So lets see if I have this right. Sweaty has illustrated apparent movement of a shape, BRILLIANT!

I’ll go the distance here with this statement, the PGF not only shows the apparent movement of a bipedal shape but within that shape is apparent movement, BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT!!

Carry on Ring Master.



m

 

[JcR]

JcR, we established rider and horse identities about 2 years ago (all in the 411 PGF). Though a number of people claimed that that is Roger (behind BH and the packhorse), it is very easy to identify him as Jerry Merritt. It was the emergence of the photo of all those guys together on horseback (with names attached) that allowed people to know who is who. I think that actors photo first appeared in print in Greg Long's book.

I don't think it's appropriate to call this a scene from the "second reel". It was shot in Washington months before the Bluff Creek thingee. To claim that this is from the second reel (loaded into camera just after the Patty encounter) is to claim that Patterson filmed Merritt & Heironimus in Washington after he filmed Patty.

Sorry I shouldn't have referred it to the 2nd reel. I really didn't know what to call it? I always kinda figured it was from another time. Didn't make sense otherwise to me. I guess I was too focused on the darn horses at the time
Anyways I didn't think it had too much value now.
I Guess if it is Merrit or Roger riding behind Bh it doesn't really matter if it was filmed months before.
Is it merrit's horse riding behind BobH and pack horse?

The same horse Merrit is on here?

I am havin a bad Horse Day

 

[JcR]

Uh oh. Did you lose the images in your attachment gallery? If so, I think mangler had the same thing happen to him. It seems that when you reach a certain maximum capacity, it automatically discards the whole lot. I could be wrong about that. Dfoot also ran into limitations with attachments.

Maybe you should start using an image host site like Photo Bucket.

I have been considering an image site.
It was all my quick upload pictures. Actually the one still there is blank.
they all were blank. But the one still there cannot be removed.
Doesn't matter. Maybe they didn't migrate so well?

 

[William Parcher]

Yes JcR, it's the same horse. I was the primary one here doing the rider/horse analysis. You can use more than just the appearance of the horse. The harnesses are identifiable factors as well.

Patterson seemed to nearly always have a set of props for himself.... chaps, rifle, coiled rope and canteen.

 

[JcR]

I find myself paying more attention to horses than people sometimes
I was thinking the bridal was similar... wish they had taken more and better pictures of the horses to.
At least a horse Poops... I am around them enough to know
Something I never wore was chaps on a working horse.
Thanks WP

 

[SweatyYeti]

You continue to attempt to dictate the terms of the conversation.

I'm not dictating anything, LTC.

And I thought I had answered all of your questions.

That's not what I asked. You left out "calf-muscle". Deliberately.

Here is your question again...

Sweaty, what are folks who don't see any "apparent calf-muscle movement" supposed to say to that?

Well, basically...my first answer still applies to, and answers, your question (with the 'calf muscle' included)...

If someone says they don't think there is even any 'apparent calf muscle movement' on the back of Patty's leg...as in this animated-gif, for example...

....then they're free to provide a reason as to why they think that's the case.

There are 2 things in your question that the word apparent applied, or refered to........"calf muscle"...and "movement".

I thought the point of your question concerned someone not seeing "apparent (calf muscle) movement"....with the emphasis on "movement".


The answer I gave earlier applies to either form of your question.....because it's the same principle.....whatever somebody thinks about anything, (whether something is moving, or whether what's moving is real muscle )...they are free to express it......and support it, with some type of reasoning.


So, if someone says they "don't see any apparent CALF-MUSCLE movement"..(with the emphasis on 'calf muscle')..then they're free to say that the bulging, moving shape is something other than real "calf muscle".......such as "padding".



Is that answer complete enough?
If not, I would be happy to elaborate on my thoughts.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

"Hey, Sweaty. Here's three clear proofs of Bob Heironimus' involvement with Roger Patterson and long-time friend and neighbour, Bob Gimlin.

What do you say to that?" ... *crickets* I predict in Sweaty's response to this post that no effort be made to address this.

Well, I'd say that since Bob Heironimus was a long-time friend and neighbour of Bob Gimlin, that there's a very high probability that they had some involvement with each other over the years.

Bob Gimlin and Roger had other friends, too......does that mean that they were all inside the "suit"???

Perhaps it was a "Patty Party"...."All right, everyone.....get in!!! We're all going for a walk!"

 

[JcR]

Here is breaking news of a couple of guys in a suit.

 

[makaya325]

Here is breaking news of a couple of guys in a suit

Nice one. To tell you the truth, romney fits in the suit better than sideshow bob.

I have also exposed the red panda effect: The reason why people reported the panda is because....THEY WERE TOLD TO

 

[kitakaze]

I have been considering an image site.
It was all my quick upload pictures. Actually the one still there is blank.
they all were blank. But the one still there cannot be removed.
Doesn't matter. Maybe they didn't migrate so well?

JcR, I didn't lose all my pictures but just yesterday had one that wouldn't delete. I posted about it in forum help and Darat (admin) removed it for me. He also advised me to switch to using picture albums which can be accessed in Quick Links and also User CP at the top of the page.

Maybe mail Darat and ask to have that last pic deleted or bring it up in Forum Help.

 

[kitakaze]

Well, I'd say that since Bob Heironimus was a long-time friend and neighbour of Bob Gimlin, that there's a very high probability that they had some involvement with each other over the years.

You're the one who paints BH like some wishful-thinking, pathological lying, delusional character and yet we know he's very clearly connected to Roger Patterson and his activities concerning Bigfoot. You admit they most likely did have some involvement over the years but you are missing the greater point. We have direct proof of Bob Heironimus' participation in Roger Patterson's Bigfoot escapades. Why have you said nothing about that? Are you afraid? Are you attempting to obscure the truth? Bob Heironimus' claim has a better probability of being true based on that information, does it not? Yes or no, Sweaty. Answer the question.

Bob Gimlin and Roger had other friends, too......does that mean that they were all inside the "suit"???

Is your logic broke? Yes, they did have other friends, it should be safe to say, Sweaty.

How many of those other friends claimed to have been Patty, appear on Bigfoot-related film and photos posing with and made by Roger Patterson, and lives 9 houses from Gimlin on the same street and a few blocks from the Patterson residence??

Tell me that, hhhmmmmm Desperado?

Perhaps it was a "Patty Party"...."All right, everyone.....get in!!! We're all going for a walk!"

Once again, ol' Sweaty, sarcasm has more bite when you're not trying to appear smart while your pants are around your ankles.

Can you please lean onto the microphone and state very clearly so that we all my understand, the name of the gentleman in the following photo and the gentleman to the far right in the photo after that?:

 

[William Parcher]

To tell you the truth, romney fits in the suit better than sideshow bob.

Do you think Jerry Romney was the guy in the suit?

 

[JcR]

JcR, I didn't lose all my pictures but just yesterday had one that wouldn't delete. I posted about it in forum help and Darat (admin) removed it for me. He also advised me to switch to using picture albums which can be accessed in Quick Links and also User CP at the top of the page.

Maybe mail Darat and ask to have that last pic deleted or bring it up in Forum Help.

Good thank you, Yes I will check into it. When I get my head straight.
Thanks again.

 

[xblade]

Nice one. To tell you the truth, romney fits in the suit better than sideshow bob.

I have also exposed the red panda effect: The reason why people reported the panda is because....THEY WERE TOLD TO

They were told to lie about panda sightings? Wow,who knew....