The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[kitakaze]

It's fun to see the fear response those images of Bob Heironimus joining his neighbours Patterson and Gimlin in Bigfoot fun causes in Sweaty.

We can see Sweaty's real interest in intellectual honesty and a pursuit of truth by his oh-so-Sweaty response to a simple question about why Bob Heironimus appears with Patterson and on his film:

Let's see.....what is the reason why Bob Heironimus is in those pictures???

Ummmm.......I have no idea.

If I had to venture a guess....I'd say it was because Bob's application to become an astronaut was turned down...and, he quickly became despondent...and joined-up with the first rodeo rider he came across, in order to keep his mind off of his lost opportunity to walk on the moon.

Am I right?

You can almost hear the nervous laugh. No, sirree... Sweaty didn't like that one at all.

 

[kitakaze]

Andre the giant played the Bionic Bigfoot.

Yes, but Ted Cassidy did also. He was Bigfoot for The Bionic Woman episodes The Return of Bigfoot parts 1 and 2 in 1976 and also The Bionic Man episode Bigfoot V in 1977.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0144252/

Here he is:



When you see a Bionic man Bigfoot figure, it's usually the Cassidy version.

 

[kitakaze]

Steve Austin vs Ted Cassidy Bigfoot:



Steve Austin vs Andre the Giant Bigfoot:



Neato Cassidy version Bigfoot action figure:



How come I can find the Bigfoot and Steve Austin TTP Dual Launch Drag Set commercial on youtube but I can't find one good unambiguous video of this alleged massive mammal species living all over North America?

 

[Vortigern99]

LOL, thanks for the vids, kitakaze! Seeing those old episodes sure brings back memories. The Cassidy version of Bionic BF is the one burned into my brain from a young age.

I find it amusing, and an odd coincidence, that the same actor who played the Bionic BF also voiced the Star Trek Gorn, the suit of which is what first got me thinking that Patty could be a suit after all, and he also played Trek's Ruk, whose suit padding shows that a chest, shoulders and arms can easily be padded out to make a slender man look more massive, as probably occurred with Patty.

 

[SweatyYeti]

What a sorry job of analysis that was, Neltana.......I'm happy to say.


Here's your mess, a little larger in size...

For the head, the line you drew is too far out...even outside of Patty's head.

And as for the shoulder, you drew the transition from the top of the shoulder to the top of the arm (highlighted by the orange dot) too far inwards...

More later...

 

[kitakaze]

What a sorry job of analysis that was, Neltana.......I'm happy to say.


Here's your mess, a little larger in size...

Hmmm... you know, that's quite interesting, Sweaty. Right over your head. Not only have you disregarded some key points nelatana was making with your predictable quibbling, but I can't help but notice the pronounced dickish disrespect. You see, maybe you can have a look at neltana's post again and explain for what reason you decided to respond to his completely civil and respectful post to you in such a nasty and bitter way?

This is what I'm talking about with you, Sweaty. What kind of commitment to sincere and honest discussion are you displaying? That wasn't me you were talking to. That was a person being very courteous to you and explaining in careful detail why they disagreed with you. They gave you the thing that you asked for.

Knowing your typical lame, petty, and dishonest behaviour I refused to give you a detailed explanation of the problems with your comparison without assurance that you would at least do the same (which you couldn't and refused). Even so, I still gave you hints regarding 6 points. Neltana went ahead and gave you what requested with courtesy and you act like a snot-nosed punk. In my books you really are a despicable debater, Sweaty. I think not only do you owe neltana an apology for your behaviour but I think once again you've displayed that you deserve nothing but disdain and scorn when you come making requests. Next time you come looking for something and want people to do something here, I will be very fast to remind everyone how you treat people that meet your requests with respect.

And BTW, according to your own reasoning, I guess neltana can not bother with any response for at least a month or two, right?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

That was a person being very courteous to you and explaining in careful detail why they disagreed with you.

Careful detail????????

Neltana drew the outline of where, allegedly, Bob's head would have been.......OUTSIDE of Patty's head.

That's careful?!


I only said that his analysis was "sorry" analysis....and it was.

 

[kitakaze]

Careful detail????????

Neltana drew the outline of where, allegedly, Bob's head would have been.......OUTSIDE of Patty's head.

That's careful?!


I only said that his analysis was "sorry" analysis....and it was.

Dude...

1) Yes, neltana explained to you in careful detail why he disagreed with you. Don't try a cowardly obfuscation.

2) You've made far bigger blunders with your placement of lines. Shall I start pulling out messed up Sweaty line drawing blunders? And you ignored the point about the problems with the image you were using.

3) You called his analysis "sorry" and a "mess". It was dickish and disrespectful and you meant it to be. Don't try to deny it. A person with any integrity would just admit that they were being a dick to the wrong person. He was respectful and courteous in providing what you requested.

You don't have the right to make any such requests in the future without being laughed at or ignored.

 

[neltana]

I really appreciate what Kit is saying. I do feel I've been as non-confrontational as possible here. And remember, my key point is that line placement is debatable and thus that we can't rely on them to draw the types of conclusions that Sweaty is drawing. I'm not saying my lines are perfect either...the blurriness of the image makes it impossible to say where the lines should be placed.

Here's an illustration:



On the top left you have one of Sweaty's outlines. On the top right is mine. On the bottom right and left are unmarked up versions of the image. I think it is easier to see the shape in the small one...enlarged images start to resemble pixel soup!

Now, to my eye, Sweaty's lines are well within the figure and inaccurate. Mine are at the outer limit of the shapes. However, given the blur, it is likely the truth lines somewhere in between. But Patty's shoulders don't seem to have the drastic slope Sweaty has, to be sure.

I maintain that a reasonable person, making reasonable judgements about where things are in these images could conclude that the dimensions are consistent with Bob. This doesn't prove Bob was in the costume, but it certainly doesn't rule him out.

In a previous post, Sweaty also said that I placed a transition point inaccurately. I did have a stray green dot in my image, but that was just a graphic typo, I must have tapped the pad with the pen accidentally. Sorry if that was confusing.

 

[GT/CS]

Dude...

1) Yes, neltana explained to you in careful detail why he disagreed with you. Don't try a cowardly obfuscation.
....Snip

Pssst, Kit. You're talking to Sweaty so try using smaller words.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Neltana wrote:

I really appreciate what Kit is saying. I do feel I've been as non-confrontational as possible here.

Absolutely, neltana. You do have a great attitude, in your posts.

I didn't have time to actually read your post, earlier. I was only responding to your outlining of Patty and Bob.....which I took an instant disliking to.

But, your pleasant attitude does deserve a better attitude, in response. So....I'm sorry I was a little harsh sounding.


neltana wrote:

Now, to my eye, Sweaty's lines are well within the figure and inaccurate.
Mine are at the outer limit of the shapes. However, given the blur, it is likely the truth lines somewhere in between.

There are a few reasons why I drew the line a bit inside the apparent border of Patty's head.
The main reason is because Patty's head angles in from the sides, while Bob's head is very much 'squarish' in shape, and rather wide, also.

So, naturally, there are going to be spaces inside Patty's head, around Bob's head.

Another reason is because Bob says he wore a helmet, of some type, inside the suit head.
Then there's the thickness of the suit itself, around his head.

So, it is appropriate to define the edge of Bob's head slightly inside of Patty's head....in trying to determine, as closely as possible, how he would have fit inside Patty's alleged "suit".

But Patty's shoulders don't seem to have the drastic slope Sweaty has, to be sure.

That's a good observation, neltana.

When I drew that outline, quite a while ago, I was focusing on the width of Patty's upper body, and not on the slope of the shoulders.

I post that image occasionally, but only in comparing body proportions that aren't dependent on that slope angle....so I've never bothered to create a new version of it.

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, you've asked for a counter-analysis to your comparison. Neltana has provided you with one that is detailed and carefully explained. Many of the points he raised were issues that occurred to me as well. Your response to the problems he raised was very selective and made no attempt to address many of the most important. One can only wonder why that is if you are looking to really find out the flaws in your comparison. What comment do you have on the parts of neltana's arguments that I have bolded?:

Okay, I don't think your analysis is valid. I offer up a prettily colored picture of my own to illustrate why.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2341149c916bbaafa9.jpg[/qimg]

I scaled my images similar to yours. The red lines show the line up points: from where Bob's shoulder meets his neck to where Patty's does and from Bob's crotch to the bottom of Patty's buttock.

Here's our first problem, these line up points could be off. Patty could be scaled bigger or smaller than she should be and we have no real way of getting this exact. Still, we ended up scaling similarly to my eye.

The blue lines, if you can make them out, are the same length. The one on Bob goes from the outer edge of his chest to the midpoint. I translated this line to Patty to illustrate that it doesn't quite reach the assumed midpoint of her back. However, it isn't too far off and the line on Patty could arguably be moved over a bit.

Here is a second problem: how do we know we have these points accurately. Bob's upper body is canted differently than Patty's and it isn't 100% clear where the outer edge or midpoints are on either figure. However, since the hypothesis is that Bob is inside a Patty suit, we wouldn't expect a perfect match.

The green lines trace the approximate outline of the head and shoulder. Now, since Bob is angling one of his shoulders forward, I did this on the side that was more square with the camera. This is the opposite shoulder than the one you were comparing.

Here is the third and fourth problems with your illustration: the shoulder you are comparing is at an orientation that minimizes its apparent width. The same dimension on the other side of Bob appears larger because of the cant of his torso. Also, the black outline you are measuring is not the same as the one I imposed. Due to the blurriness of the source material, it is very hard to know exactly what the contours of Patty are.

The purple lines are the exact same as the green lines, but they have been translated so that they are next to each other. As you can see, there doesn't appear to be a marked difference between the two.

So that's why I think you haven't made the case that Patty's shoulders are markedly wider than Bob's. They may be, but I think a reasonable person can come to a different conclusion working with the same images.

I really appreciate what Kit is saying. I do feel I've been as non-confrontational as possible here. And remember, my key point is that line placement is debatable and thus that we can't rely on them to draw the types of conclusions that Sweaty is drawing. I'm not saying my lines are perfect either...the blurriness of the image makes it impossible to say where the lines should be placed.
Here's an illustration:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2341149c97ff46098a.jpg[/qimg]

On the top left you have one of Sweaty's outlines. On the top right is mine. On the bottom right and left are unmarked up versions of the image. I think it is easier to see the shape in the small one...enlarged images start to resemble pixel soup!

Now, to my eye, Sweaty's lines are well within the figure and inaccurate. Mine are at the outer limit of the shapes. However, given the blur, it is likely the truth lines somewhere in between. But Patty's shoulders don't seem to have the drastic slope Sweaty has, to be sure.

I maintain that a reasonable person, making reasonable judgements about where things are in these images could conclude that the dimensions are consistent with Bob. This doesn't prove Bob was in the costume, but it certainly doesn't rule him out.

In a previous post, Sweaty also said that I placed a transition point inaccurately. I did have a stray green dot in my image, but that was just a graphic typo, I must have tapped the pad with the pen accidentally. Sorry if that was confusing.

BTW, it's good to see that you apologized to neltana. Be a dick to me all you like but there's no need to act that way to people that have been completely courteous to you.

 

[LTC8K6]

The Bionic Woman? Who the heck watched that?

Episode 5? Johnny come lately...

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

It's fun to see the fear response those images of Bob Heironimus joining his neighbours Patterson and Gimlin in Bigfoot fun causes in Sweaty.

It's even more fun when you can, literally, see the fear......

kitakaze wrote:

Your response to the problems he raised was very selective and made no attempt to address many of the most important points.

One can only wonder why that is....

One need not wonder anymore......I didn't have time to respond to everything neltana wrote.

Therefore...I was 'selective'.

It's a sad fact of reality....In these busy times we live in, sometimes people don't have enough time to do everything they would like to do...which they would indeed do, if they did, in fact, have more time available to themselves, to do them things....
Do you know what I mean?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

What comment do you have on the parts of neltana's arguments that I have bolded?:

I'll respond to those later, when I have the time to.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Another reason is because Bob says he wore a helmet, of some type, inside the suit head.
Then there's the thickness of the suit itself, around his head.

He said that the interior of the mask reminded him of an old fashioned football helmet, not that he wore a helmet under the mask.

 

[kitakaze]

It's even more fun when you can, literally, see the fear......

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/scared.jpg[/qimg]

That's great, that's a cute picture. I'm glad you had the time it took to find the image and be cute. I can't help but think, though, that as you are the person who started the thread on Bob Heironimus' claim of being Patty that such a simple question as this...

Let's see.....what is the reason why Bob Heironimus is in those pictures???

...wouldn't take so much coaxing and noseleading to get you to answer. You would think that an intellectually honest person who was interested in the truth would take the initiative and be eager to address that issue that is undeniably significant regardless of whether you think you can use extremely poor quality images to rule BH out of the equation. One really wonders what the problem is with a person who would continually evade addressing such a fundamental point. Footers have long treated BH and his claim since coming forward as that of some random attention starved loony who may be just crazy enough to believe his own delusions (therefore being able to pass a polygraph). But, the fact is that he is not some random loony at all. Not only does he have a long and firmly established relationship with the suspected hoaxers to a degree that would spell certain doom to the average person you explained the situation to, but he can also be proven to have been there and participating in the suspected hoaxers Bigfoot activities at the time.
Here's a simple question for you, Sweaty. Yes or no (we like yes or no, don't we, Sweaty?). Is it fair for a person to think that someone who spends so much time trying to disprove BH's involvement in the PGF as the suit wearer that continually opts not to answer the simple and centrally important question above could be viewed as being biased? Yes or no answer followed by any explanation you like, thank you.

One need not wonder anymore......I didn't have time to respond to everything neltana wrote.

Therefore...I was 'selective'.

It's a sad fact of reality....In these busy times we live in, sometimes people don't have enough time to do everything they would like to do...which they would indeed do, if they did, in fact, have more time available to themselves, to do them things....
Do you know what I mean?

Yes, I know what you mean, Sweaty. We all have demands on our time. And yet, we find the time to engage in this interest of ours regarding debate and discussion. The simple fact is that if someone provides me with a set of arguments on a topic, I respond by trying to deal with what is the most pertinent and centrally important. The points that represent the greatest difficulty to the argument I am trying to advance. The reason I and other skeptics here do this is because we are intellectually honest and want to tackle the problems in a sincere and earnest manner. We know that if we don't and if we might be seen to be evading those points or brushing them off in a flippant manner, that our credibility drops to zero. We know that if we only cherry pick things we think we can quibble with in a contrarian manner, the people around us quickly dismiss us as having no true interest in honest debate.

This is what you do, Sweaty, and why so many besides myself have disrespect and scorn for your contributions (or lack of them) to our serious discussions. You say it is a matter of time and on the surface that might be acceptable but only if it can be shown that you do make a sincere effort to deal with issues that are key while they are in discussion or at anytime after they are raised. It can be noted with consistent predictability the manner in which you will seek to avoid certain issues. People such as myself have developed the rather unremarkable ability to predict the ways in which you will seek to evade certain issues.

As I have shown many times and as we all know you are notorious for, later often never comes with you. Any of us you'll note makes a consistent effort to tackle the most difficult issues against our ideas in a debate but this is not so with you. Demonstrably so, time after time. And thus you are, so rightfully in my opinion, labelled an intellectual coward. That is something you've earned and I have no expectation for it to ever change. I think the greatest value you have in a debate is to provide newcomers a model of how not to behave.

Later.

 

[SweatyYeti]

He said that the interior of the mask reminded him of an old fashioned football helmet, not that he wore a helmet under the mask.

Would there be a significant difference between those two things?

What could be the actual difference....in thickness....between an 'old fashioned' football helmet', and something which resembles an 'old fashioned football helmet'? An INCH?


This raises another important question...

If Bob found a 1/2" thick 'helmet type of thingy' inside the head worthy of mentioning......why in the world has he NEVER thought that the 3-4 inch thick padding on his back, and sides, from his waist right up to the back of his head, worth mentioning??????


And why did Bob H. say that the suit had 'shoulder pads' in it.....when the suit (if it was a suit), most definitely had thick, custom-formed padding....(as I just described)....from the waist right up to the neck.

Nobody (including Dfoot ) making custom-molded padding to cover that much area, would bother to include a separate shoulder pad unit into the 'mix'.
It would have been a completely senseless thing to do.

There is no 'shoulder pad unit' in the alleged suit....and since Bob claims that there was, it's safe to say that Bob was not Patty.

 

[kitakaze]

This raises another important question...

If Bob found a 1/2" thick 'helmet type of thingy' inside the head worthy of mentioning......why in the world has he NEVER thought that the 3-4 inch thick padding on his back, and sides, from his waist right up to the back of his head, worth mentioning??????

That's a non-issue quibble about the way he recollects something. Of course he can be expected to more vividly remember what he was sticking his head into and had on his face than what was on his body. He said he had shoulder pads, though, so not a big deal. You haven't demonstrated that he had siginificantly else though that's certainly possible. Waaaaaaaaaaaaay more possible than Patty being a real Bigfoot. Is that a reasonable conclusion? Yes or no?

And why did Bob H. say that the suit had 'shoulder pads' in it.....when the suit (if it was a suit), most definitely had thick, custom-formed padding....(as I just described)....from the waist right up to the neck.

Again, you haven't demonstrated that. Could have been, though. It's not a massive deal the way he described it. He doesn't have to recall and mention every feature of the suit just to satisfy cultish footers like you.

But go have fun with that.

Hey, look at that. Dealt with your key question right away, lickity split. No big time issue.

 

[desertyeti]

For Sweaty: