• 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.
kitakaze said:
I'd like to know, Longtabber what part(s) of BH's claims doesn't wash with you or suggests he is lying.
Click to expand...

Its not that doesnt wash or I think he is lying ( as being different from simply in error) because my "gut" tells me he is telling the truth as he remembers it but he either didnt know all the details or his memory is failing a bit.

Flying from my memory and experience:

His story has a "sound" of logic and truth to it ( the details follow a pattern and many details are there that story tellers generally dont think to include)

His comments about the "horsehide" are "out there" and not easily seen in the PGF.

I can ascribe it to "his" description of horsehide. ( thats how "he" described it as having the quality of horsehide but not "literally" horsehide)
Same for the suit shoulder pads, helmet etc.

Now, to maintain legitimacy and objective analysis, BH cannot be given any leeway any more than RP, BG or anyone else. The story as he told it has errors and inconsistencies in it. Thats a fact. ( he isnt alone in that regard)

I DO however believe ( gut instinct- nothing to base it on) that the truth is attainable.

If it were me, in a FRIENDLY but professional/trained interrogation standpoint, I would:

Ask him to review the PGF in real time and get his account from say 24 hours PRIOR to 24 hours POST of the filming. Tell where he stood, how he walked, the suit dressing, who had it, how they got it there, how he got involved from the beginning, what happened when the filming stopped.

Ask for specific dates, witnesses and so forth.

I firmly believe a DETAILED account for that 48 hour period would yield enough researchable detail to positively conclude that either BH was in the suit and the PGF is a scam or prove BH is a complete fraud.

Its been my experience interviewing/interrogating ( when you show the perp the video or evidence pictures etc) and the LONGER you expand the window- the more accurate and positive results you get. ( relating to the question of is he lying or not)
 
Vortigern99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Many people who prepare their fabrications in advance throw in unimportant details that nobody would usually remember or bring up when recounting their activities.

I would appreciate LT's input here as well - but based on my experience - that level of "selling" is usually a dead give-a-way of a lie.
 
I think it would be great fun if LT and I were able to hook-up and do a proper interview of both Gimlin and BH.

I'm willing to bet that Gimlin would turn us down flat - as is his custom - but BH would be game.

What is your schedule like over the year LT?
 
rockinkt said:
I think it would be great fun if LT and I were able to hook-up and do a proper interview of both Gimlin and BH.

I'm willing to bet that Gimlin would turn us down flat - as is his custom - but BH would be game.

What is your schedule like over the year LT?
Click to expand...



If you can have this interview located somewhere in the eastern half of the country....there are some questions I'd like to ask him....some of which would relate to specific things about Patty's movements.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
If you can have this interview located somewhere in the eastern half of the country....there are some questions I'd like to ask him....some of which would relate to specific things about Patty's movements.
Click to expand...

You have to be joking!
I do not want to be associated with someone so intellectually dishonest as you are. Period.
 
Here's one little detail about Patty's movements that doesn't jive with what Bob Heirony has said.

First.....here is what Philip Morris and Bob Heironimus had to say about the "suit" interfering with the head movement...


(Morris)..."Another thing, when you put on the gorilla head, you can only turn your head maybe a quarter of the way. And to look behind you, you've got to turn your head and your shoulders and your hips. Plus, the shoulder pads in the suit are in the way of the jaw. That's why the Bigfoot turns and looks the way he does in the film. He has to twist his entire upper body." [See also David Daegling and Daniel Schmitt's article "Bigfoot's Screen Test" in the May/June 1999 issue of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER.]

Heironimus also confirmed that he had to turn his entire torso, instead of just his neck, because of how he was constrained in the suit.
Click to expand...

Link...

http://xzonenation.blogspot.com/2006/11/exposing-roger-pattersons-1967-bigfoot.html



Now...notice how, at the end of the 'look back' sequence, Patty's head turns back in the direction she's walking after her upper torso has already turned back, facing forward...

Pattywalk55A.gif




Where's the "interference"???

Here's another look at it, courtesy of MK "20-20" Davis...

'Range of motion of the neck of the Patterson film subject'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1qcVhJjlzc&feature=channel_page


Good stuff! :)
 
SweatyYeti said:
Here's one little detail about Patty's movements that doesn't jive with what Bob Heirony has said.
Click to expand...

I think you'll notice nobody is going to care what you have to say. AFAIC, you've completely disqualified yourself from the discussion and deserve nothing more than to point and laugh/shake the head. hahaha... Look at the desperate fanatic flailing. Had his crap all blown up now he's wheeling in another load. You have walked yourself right out of the debate. Pretty much just a minor nuisance/amusement. Everything you do is ruled by a pants-down obvious will to believe. It's sad and funny for the real critical thinkers here to watch. Dude, you could show up and claim a taped confession of Bob Heironimus saying he made it all up and nobody would care.

Enjoy the pariah status your habitual intellectual dishonesty has earned you.

Oops for you.
 
Last edited:
LONGTABBER PE said:
Ask him to review the PGF in real time and get his account from say 24 hours PRIOR to 24 hours POST of the filming. Tell where he stood, how he walked, the suit dressing, who had it, how they got it there, how he got involved from the beginning, what happened when the filming stopped.

Ask for specific dates, witnesses and so forth.

I firmly believe a DETAILED account for that 48 hour period would yield enough researchable detail to positively conclude that either BH was in the suit and the PGF is a scam or prove BH is a complete fraud.

Its been my experience interviewing/interrogating ( when you show the perp the video or evidence pictures etc) and the LONGER you expand the window- the more accurate and positive results you get. ( relating to the question of is he lying or not)
Click to expand...

In my photo album is a photo of me and a buddy on a duck hunt some 12 years ago. I can't tell you the month (it would have been Dec or Jan), I can't tell you where I stayed (buddy's house or lake cabin), I can't tell you what day of the week (Sat, Sun, Mon) the photo was taken.

Would you really expect BH to be able to remember enuff details to confirm or deny his wearing the suit?
 
Last edited:
clayflingythingy said:
In my photo album is a photo of me and a buddy on a duck hunt some 12 years ago. I can't tell you the month (it would have been Dec or Jan), I can't tell you where I stayed (buddy's house or lake cabin), I can't tell you what day of the week (Sat, Sun, Mon) the photo was taken.

Would you really expect BH to be able to remember enuff details to confirm or deny his wearing the suit?
Click to expand...

I find that rather funny because I was doing something similar a few months ago. I was putting together all my old Navy slides/negatives into digital format. I kept looking at the pics and remembering some very significant events. However, I had a devil of a time remembering details and names. It took a lot of emails and checking with old buddies to figure stuff out. Does this mean Bob gets a free pass? No. However, it does give me an understanding when he makes small errors.
 
clayflingythingy said:
In my photo album is a photo of me and a buddy on a duck hunt some 12 years ago. I can't tell you the month (it would have been Dec or Jan), I can't tell you where I stayed (buddy's house or lake cabin), I can't tell you what day of the week (Sat, Sun, Mon) the photo was taken.

Would you really expect BH to be able to remember enuff details to confirm or deny his wearing the suit?
Click to expand...

No and nor could I

Its like everything else.

The "window" to get "facts" and be able to actually verify them is all but over. Thats reality, thats history and thats never going to change. It would take the "lucky shot from hell" to show me otherwise.

You, nor anyone else will get an argument from me on that. Memories change, the mind influences and all of that.

My statement wasnt so much "details" as the overview or the abstract.

I dont need "suit" details as much as I need the "whole event" to disprove the PGF.

For example, throw the suit out- if he had the account of how he got involved, who knew, what he allegedly did on "that day", what happened after it, what everyone did, what they did after and so forth- I dont need the suit.

I personally believe that BH never "owned" the suit so he had no control over it. I dont know or care if the suit was used in TV or burned. The film is the question. If there are enough details about the "shooting" then the "costume" makes no difference.
 
rockinkt said:
Many people who prepare their fabrications in advance throw in unimportant details that nobody would usually remember or bring up when recounting their activities.

I would appreciate LT's input here as well - but based on my experience - that level of "selling" is usually a dead give-a-way of a lie.
Click to expand...

Thats correct. "Professional" liars script their lies and have "all the answers". They know someone will ask and they have the script down pat.

This is just my gut feel ( and worth that much and nothing more)

BH is giving a "truthful" account ( if not accurate) account of what happened that day.
 
More crayon lines...with more good news for us Patty fans...:).


This comparison uses Bob's unsuited head...


PattyHeadSizeComp7Lined.jpg
BobHeadSizeComp7Lined.jpg




I've highlighted the width of their heads.....with the blue lines....placing them right at the outside of the eye sockets. ('Cause that's where the human skull turns from front, to the side.)

And here is Bob's Prob...:)...

The 2 red lines are the same length.....and represent the width of Bob's forehead, at about the point where Bob's forehead turns to the flat top of his head.

I've placed the width of Bob's forehead as high as it can possibly be placed on Patty's cone-head.....within the decreasing width of Patty's forehead...(marked by the blue lines).


And that placement...being at least a couple of inches below the top of Patty's 'one-and-only' coney-shaped head....supports this head alignment/scaling, which I crayoned-in a while ago...


PattyWinsBobLoses2.jpg
BobHLosesAgain1.jpg



But wait......there's more...:cool:...


In applying the width of Bob's head onto Patty's.....I didn't allow for the thickness of the supposed, alleged, "football helmet" kind of thing that Bob says he wore.

Add that in....and you can shrink Bob's head just a little bit more.
 
Last edited:
Sweaty, why are you posting more comparisons? They are nothing. Your contribution to this debate among intellectually honest people is nothing. Honest people deal with their flawed arguments and answer the questions asked of them in a debate. They don't ignore, evade, run away, and just keep posting crap. That is what fanatical believer does. You're providing the evidence for you being the dishonest believer I claimed right now. You're worse. You're just spamming now. I thought you said you were going to answer Astro's questions.

Boo.
 
Astrophotographer said:
I suggest you prove that Bob can not fit in Patty's head.

Show us some actual measurements with some real high resolution images.

Demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that Bob's head is too big. If you can't prove it using something other than crayons, then your claim is false.
Click to expand...


See above. :)



I will try and demonstrate your claim is false using the data in the image you presented. As I stated already, there is nothing in this image that shows his head is too big. I actually did some measurements as crude as they are.

At the line level, I get 76 pixels for the width of "Might be bob in a suit" and 77 pixels for "Bob in a suit".
Click to expand...



Here again is the comparison...so we can see where the line level is...


BobBrainBe2Big23.jpg




Sorry Astro....but the part of the head that's in question....as far as the available space is concerned is NOT below the eyebrows, but ABOVE them.

You know.....that CONE shaped area.....also known, on occasion, as Patty's FOREHEAD...


PattySmallBrain1Flipped.jpg



Astro wrote:

Assuming we are talking about 72 inches (roughly 6 feet) as the height of Bob as seen in this frame, then we are talking about roughly 7 pixels per inch (the height of Bob is 508 pixels in your image). Now Bob is not fully erect, so I can suggest it is more likely 66 inches, which equates to almost 8 pixels per inch. You can do the rest of the math. The difference of 1 pixel equates to less than a 1/7th or 1/8th of an inch. Measurement error, resolution of the images used, the postions of the heads differing, thickness of the materials in the mask, etc can all account for this minor deviation between the two.

Even if the difference was 3-4 pixels, we are talking about 1/2 an inch at most.

Again, the errors involved can easily explain the difference.
Click to expand...



Half an inch???? :boggled:


Your "analysis" is pure garbage, Astro. You didn't even measure the appropriate part of their heads.


Stick your head in the sand or whatever but don't pee on my leg and say it is raining.
Click to expand...


Don't take a dump on the board, and call it "analysis". ;)
 
kitakaze wrote:
I thought you said you were going to answer Astro's questions.
Click to expand...


See above. :)


They don't ignore, evade, run away, and just keep posting crap.
Click to expand...


Astro sure did.


I'll keep on posting comparisons of Bob and Patty....and, undoubtedly, the comparisons will continue showing the same thing.....Bob's arms shorter than Patty's...the upper half of his head larger than Patty's...his body width well narrower than Patty's.

And you can keep right on hissing at me, and the comparisons, kitty. You're nothing more than a ranting, raving joke.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
More crayon lines...with more good news for us Patty fans...:).


This comparison uses Bob's unsuited head...


PattyHeadSizeComp7Lined.jpg
BobHeadSizeComp7Lined.jpg




I've highlighted the width of their heads.....
Click to expand...

And just what would be the measured width of those red lines Sweaty? In inches if you please.

You do realize that the width of someone's head without costume, can differ from the width of someone's head with costume, right?

RayG
 
SweatyYeti said:
See above. :)

Astro sure did.

I'll keep on posting comparisons of Bob and Patty....and, undoubtedly, the comparisons will continue showing the same thing.....Bob's arms shorter than Patty's...the upper half of his head larger than Patty's...his body width well narrower than Patty's.

And you can keep right on hissing at me, and the comparisons, kitty. You're nothing more than a ranting, raving joke.
Click to expand...

Show me one observation I've made about you in the last 5 pages that isn't true and prove it if I'm such a ranting, raving joke. Try answering the simple questions I asked you. I answered yours and it was easy.

So sad, so funny. Look at the weirdo Bigfoot fanatic aping the reasonable people people around him. You are not a reasonable person, Sweaty. Just a silly believer, nothing more. Do you think anyone gives a rat's ass about your believer's scribbles? Get a life. These last few pages of this thread have been your complete owning. Post #1180 sums up nicely the state of your pathetic attempts to flail your believer's agenda here. You haven't dealt with Astro's questions so please don't lie to me:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1117

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1146

I know it's hard for such an intellectually dishonest person to do. We all see how scared you are of the truth and an honest debate, Sweaty.

Boo. Hiss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom