The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Astrophotographer]

I would like to get this conversation back on track to an examination of the veracity of Bob Heironimus' claims of being Patty. To this end there are some points we can settle and move forward.

I agree. I don't want to be considered "Frightened" but I think the details are the important thing. So far I agree there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest Bob could be the subject in the film. That does not mean he is but, so far, I have yet to see any evidence to falsify the "Bob is the guy in the suit" hypothesis.

 

[kitakaze]

I agree. I don't want to be considered "Frightened" but I think the details are the important thing. So far I agree there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest Bob could be the subject in the film. That does not mean he is but, so far, I have yet to see any evidence to falsify the "Bob is the guy in the suit" hypothesis.

I agree. Sweaty tried to imply that mangler was hoaxing us with different skeletons in the Poser 7 overlay proving a match for BH and Patty's proportions. I don't like being duped. I'd be choked if mangler pulled a fast one on us to support a preconceived notion. I'm not worried about that. He proved he didn't. I do not want to be supporting the idea that Bob Heironimus was Patty if he was lying. I welcome any information that would falsify his claim and bring me closer to the truth. I have also yet to see anything able to do this. I've seen a lot of backflips and running away but nothing to assure me that the things I've noted in support of BH can be dismissed.

Hey, footers, where is the factual information that destroys Bob Heironimus' claim to be Patty?

 

[kitakaze]

Here's something crazy I just found on youtube from the crazy pareidolia freak, Blevins, that may in fact be worth noting:



Noting that Heironimus in his account of of the filming of the PGF says that the suit was stored in a white tarp and placed on the back of a horse, Blevins points out that a white tarp can clearly be seen on the back of one of the horses in the PGF.

Certainly not any kind of proof but it is interesting. What would Patterson and Gimlin be carrying in a big white tarp?

 

[Vortigern99]

From :13 to :30 we're treated to an extreme close-up of someone closing up a white, fringed sack containing what very well could be a reddish-brown fur suit. The National Geographic square can be seen in the upper left corner. Where does this National Geographic footage come from? Is it a blow-up of an earlier portion of the PGF? Would P and/or G have been so utterly imbecilic as to include a shot of one of them packing the suit up in its sack?? Surely not.

 

[Astrophotographer]

It is interesting to say the least. However, let's play devil's advocate here. Maybe Bob saw the PGF and decided to talk about the white tarp he saw in the film.

I also think those images at :13-:30 have to do with a recreation on the NG show "Is it real".

 

[JcR]

The footage is from NG'S Is it real. Go to 4:10 to see the re-enactment

 

[kitakaze]

The close-ups are from the NG re-enactment based on Bob's testimony of the suit being put in a white tarp on top of a horse. The distant shots are from Patterson's film showing a horse with a white tarp across the back.

 

[kitakaze]

It is interesting to say the least. However, let's play devil's advocate here. Maybe Bob saw the PGF and decided to talk about the white tarp he saw in the film.

Good idea. OK, if Bob saw such a minscule detail as the tarp on the back of the horse and retconned it to fit his story, where did he see the footage in which the tarp can be seen? Bob's been telling his story for a long time. When did the white tarp on the horse first get mentioned? Bob would have obviously seen the famous portions of the PGF on TV over the years but how often have the scenes in which the tarp can be seen been shown? And if Bob did see those scenes, could he really realistically be expected to see such a minor detail and make use of it with his story? That would be very devious indeed and certainly not impossible but is it a more likely answer?

Of course we are dealing with circumstantial evidence but it seems to me that Bob remembering the suit being put in a white tarp and slung across the back of a horse, which can in fact be seen in obscure little known and rarely seen parts of the film, is more likely than him seeing the obscure part of the film, picking out the detail, and retconning it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Good idea. OK, if Bob saw such a minscule detail as the tarp on the back of the horse and retconned it to fit his story, where did he see the footage in which the tarp can be seen?

I agree it seems unlikely but that will be the argument made by the proponents who claim Bob is obviously lying.

 

[William Parcher]

A couple years ago on a web radio show, BH said the suit was carried in a "hop sack", not a tarp. I guess that is some kind of sack to carry harvested hops. Is that what he is talking about?

 

[LTC8K6]

They would use a tarp for a roof in the woods...

I believe most folks would call a hop sack a burlap sack...

 

[JcR]

The close-ups are from the NG re-enactment based on Bob's testimony of the suit being put in a white tarp on top of a horse. The distant shots are from Patterson's film showing a horse with a white tarp across the back.

I kind of left that part out, the real footage starting at 0:52 to the end.
I have a feeling that Bob Heironimus has seen a lot less of the Pgf film
than the most of us here. But this is just a guess.
Did BobH pick out certain details in the film to spin his tale...I doubt we could ever know.
Reasonable doubt?
I don't even think a Gimlin confession would derail this Pattytrain.

 

[kitakaze]

I have a feeling that Bob Heironimus has seen a lot less of the Pgf film than the most of us here. But this is just a guess.

I think you are right. When has Bob Heironimus ever once posted on a Bigfoot board? I suspect that following the debate online would be a colossal waste of time for him. He seems to be under the impression that millions of people were fooled by the PGF but I suspect he was given an inflated appraisal of the film's impact by proponents or someone like Greg Long who would have had an interest in proclaiming the film to have fooled millions. The fact is that it's a quirky pop culture icon dismissed as a monkeysuit by the average person.

I don't even think a Gimlin confession would derail this Pattytrain.

Once again, who wants to go to Yakima and gatecrash with me? We'll ask ol' salt of the earth some hard questions while the footers boo and hiss.

 

[William Parcher]

BH said "we called it a hop sack", as if it is a regional or local term.

Did BobH pick out certain details in the film to spin his tale...I doubt we could ever know.

Well, his story has significant differences compared to P&G. For example, he says it was filmed weeks before Oct. 20th. It seems like he could have "adjusted" a false confession to better match with what P&G said. If he never was in the suit at Bluff Creek, why not just go with the Oct. 20 date? Either they really did film him earlier, or he chose that earlier date for some added appeal (fix the impossible film development timeline?).

What strikes me as most outstanding if Bob is hoaxing his confession, is that he is falsely accusing his old friend of lying to the world. It went into a book! You have to have a serious screw loose in your head to do that.

 

[kitakaze]

BH said "we called it a hop sack", as if it is a regional or local term.

Tarp or sack, there still is a white tarp/sack on one of the horses. A roof against rain is one suggestion. Seems like a big roof to throw on a horse's back.

Well, his story has significant differences compared to P&G. For example, he says it was filmed weeks before Oct. 20th. It seems like he could have "adjusted" a false confession to better match with what P&G said. If he never was in the suit at Bluff Creek, why not just go with the Oct. 20 date? Either they really did film him earlier, or he chose that earlier date for some added appeal (fix the impossible film development timeline?).

Excellent point. Why contradict the main hoaxers on something as trivial as the filming date?

What strikes me as most outstanding if Bob is hoaxing his confession, is that he is falsely accusing his old friend of lying to the world. It went into a book! You have to have a serious screw loose in your head to do that.

This is insane! BG can just walk nine houses down and give BH serious trouble. How nuts do you have to be to accuse your friend of a hoax and how lucky do you have to be that after 40 years some online skeptics would confirm that his proportions and height is a match?

It blows my mind.

 

[Vortigern99]

Why contradict the main hoaxers on something as trivial as the filming date?

Just to play devil's advocate here, the prime ingredient in convincing someone of an outrageous lie is to include an element that makes the listener/target wonder "Why did they tell me that?"

Like for example, if I were to lie to my boss about being late for work, I could tell him that my cat ran outside this morning and I had to go fetch him. It took me twenty minutes, and here I am, late to work! Most people would stop at that.

But if really wanted to sell the story, I would tell my boss that it happened while I was naked, just out of the shower. I had to grab a towel and there I was, carrying my cat in one arm, keeping my towel up with the other.

"Why the hell would he have told me that," my boss would wonder, "unless it were true? It seems too embarrassing to mention unless it were true."

[braindoctorfromtheexorcist]Same thing here. Same principle, I mean.[/braindoctorfromtheexorcist]

Again, just to play devil's advocate.

 

[kitakaze]

Just to play devil's advocate here, the prime ingredient in convincing someone of an outrageous lie is to include an element that makes the listener/target wonder "Why did they tell me that?"

Yes, quite true. We need all of this devil advocacy for the sake of exploring the alternatives. The behaviour you mention is one of an accomplished or even pathological liar. The thing about habitual liars is that they have a hard time stopping. They embellish their lies in Jon Lovitz fashion for exactly the effect you mention. The problem is that Bob Heironimus hasn't shown any signs of embellishment. He just keeps on telling the same story that he's been telling for decades now. It has the kind of imperfections you'd exactly expect for someone recounting an old memory and footers like Sweaty jump on him for not detailing minutae whiling turning a blind eye to Patterson and Gimlin's glaring inconsistencies. Polygraphs may not be perfect proof but in passing two of them BH has at least demonstrated that he is convinced of his claim himself.

If Bob Heironimus is a liar, he should have been a spy rather than a cola bottler.

 

[Vortigern99]

They embellish their lies in Jon Lovitz fashion for exactly the effect you mention.

So far as we know, Bob has never claimed to be married to, uh... Morgan Fairchild!

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Sorry, it's late and I'm woozy.

 

[JcR]

Does anyone think that Bob Heironimus's confession had more of a booster shot effect, rather than a big "shootdown" for the PGF, and the multidimensional Bigfoot culture?
Did BF receive a noticeable wound from the BobH shootdown?
Or is it like adding more gravy to your tators?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Well, his story has significant differences compared to P&G. For example, he says it was filmed weeks before Oct. 20th. It seems like he could have "adjusted" a false confession to better match with what P&G said. If he never was in the suit at Bluff Creek, why not just go with the Oct. 20 date? Either they really did film him earlier, or he chose that earlier date for some added appeal (fix the impossible film development timeline?).

What strikes me as most outstanding if Bob is hoaxing his confession, is that he is falsely accusing his old friend of lying to the world. It went into a book! You have to have a serious screw loose in your head to do that.

Thats kinda where I'm at. I'm certain the PGF is a staged shoot but as far as BH, it depends on what day I'm asked. Sometimes I even believe he was filmed for a "cut" of the production but its not the one seen in the final cut.

The part that makes me believe he is being truthful ( maybe not fully accurate) is that level of detail and those small pieces.

The key to the PGF is in a detailed interview with BH.