The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[kitakaze]

Thanks, Mak.

Actually...most everyone would agree that the Morris "recreation" suit is a 'Train-load of laughs'.......it's just that some of us folks...(the "skeptics") ...prefer to agree by way of silence, rather than words.

I do not even a little think that Morris made Patty. I don't know about silence rather than words but I'm good with pictures. A picture is worth a thousand words. Here's three thousand words...

They all say Patty and Bob's arm lengths are about the same.

 

[kitakaze]

One other thing...about the potential interview of Bob H.

If at all possible, if an interview could be arranged to be held somewhere in the Eastern half, or in the middle, of the US....there are a few questions I'd like to ask him, in person. One question, in particular, should put an end to the doubts....in everybody's mind.

I asked you to PM me the question and you wouldn't. You don't generally do well with questions, neither making them nor answering them.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Holy guacamole, it should be a DVD. Hey Doug Hajicek, you guys want in on this? MonsterQuest: Bob? Whitewolf feature DVD? If

Just this afternooon, I was thinking about the TV potential for an interview of both Heironimus and Gimlin...by a panel of Bigfoot skeptics, and proponents...(perhaps 1, or 2 of each)...for a show such as Monsterquest.

Perhaps Monsterquest could devote an entire episode to the Patterson Film itself.....and, as one of it's highlights, it could include a 'Showdown' interview of the 2 big names associated with the Film.


Just an idea...

 

[SweatyYeti]

I asked you to PM me the question and you wouldn't. You don't generally do well with questions, neither making them nor answering them.

Great idea, kitty!!! That way, if Bob answers the questions 'with flying colors'.....his answers will carry NO WEIGHT, whatsoever!!! Because we'll NEVER KNOW whether you gave him the questions ahead of time, so he could do some research, for his answers!!!

You're a GENIUS!!!



NEVER will I ever consider giving you, or any other skeptic, any question to ask Bob, which I think may 'trip him up'.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You don't generally do well with questions, neither making them nor answering them.

Watch this.......


Question..."Which simple, three-word phrase perfectly describes the state of a vacumn cleaner, when it's working beautifully, and when it's broken?"


Answer......"This thing sucks!"

 

[kitakaze]

Great idea, kitty!!! That way, if Bob answers the questions with flying colors.....his answers will carry NO WEIGHT, whatsoever!!! Because we'll NEVER KNOW whether you gave him the questions ahead of time, so he could do some research, for his answers!!!

You're a GENIUS!!!



NEVER will I ever consider giving you, or any other skeptic, any question to ask Bob, which I think may 'trip him up'.

Sorry, Sweaty. You'd just have to trust me that if I personally thought the question was any good, and not the gobbledy-gook you usually come up with, that I would ask him while recording him without any prior warning.

You must be feeling extra silly today, if you think I'd give Bob a chance to research any question I'd ask him. I Tommy you...

Feel free to ask him yourself, if you ever get the chance to meet him. I'd call a chance of that somewhere in the high nevers.

 

[kitakaze]

Watch this.......

Question..."Which simple, three-word phrase perfectly describes the state of a vacumn cleaner, when it's working beautifully, and when it's broken?"

Answer......"This thing sucks!"

Watch this.......

6th July 2009, 08:45 AM



6th July 2009, 06:39 PM:



7th July 2009, 08:54 AM:



Today is the 22nd of July. 16 days and five pages have gone by since Astro asked those questions. Every single day for more than two weeks Sweaty has been asked why he is avoiding answer simple questions regarding his arguments. In this post I pointed out the many times that Sweaty has claimed he doesn't avoid questions. Every single person reading this thread who isn't Sweaty knows this to be a lie. I'm confident that Sweaty knows this is a lie, as well.

Here arethree simple questions for Sweaty that I predict he will avoid answering...

1) Sweaty, do you avoid answering questions about your Bigfoot evidence arguments that you are repeatedly asked about? Yes or no.

2) Is it fair that the regular participants of this thread as well as the casual observers think you avoid answering questions about your Bigfoot evidence arguments that you are repeatedly asked about? Yes or no.

3) If you answer "no" to either of those questions, why do you think it is that every single one of the regular participants of this thread as well as many casual observers think you avoid answering questions about your Bigfoot evidence arguments that you are repeatedly asked about?

Sweaty, your post #1836 looks like it was made by a slightly kooky person. It's staggering to think that you might actually believe that people will take seriously the participation in a debate of a person who takes the kind of time necessary to individually color letters, sentences, paragraphs, abuse sizes and fonts, make visual messes of posts, and cackle, hum, and babble like a crazy person and yet flee like a frightened tit mouse from the most basic and simple questions regarding you arguments.

?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You'd just have to trust me

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

They all say Patty and Bob's arm lengths are about the same.

Actually....the images of 'Bob-in-a-suit' say something about 'Bob-in-a-suit'.......not necessarily about Bob himself.

There is a difference.

 

[GT/CS]

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob%20Two/KittyBS1.jpg[/qimg]



Actually....the images of 'Bob-in-a-suit' say something about 'Bob-in-a-suit'.......not necessarily about Bob himself.

There is a difference.

What's the difference?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I originally asked tube (Matt Crowley) to accompany me to Yakima to meet Bob, as Matt lives in Seattle and is a well known figure for Bigfoot enthusiasts. Matt graciously declined, as he's bowed out of Bigfootery action, and I totally understand. He doesn't want the attention while I'm not overly worried about it. Longtabber and I have discussed it as well and even though he is unable to go for defense of his country, I will definitely be relying on some of Longtabber's expertise in interviewing people. I will be making a lot of preparations for this trip to Yakima, if the Heironimus' will accept my request, and I will record as much of it as possible for youtube.

Just let me know- give me a few weeks out if possible

 

[SweatyYeti]

What's the difference?

A suit.


Duh.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
So.....how about it, kitty....can you get some nice high-quality pictures of Bob....and his big, fat (over-sized ) head!

I will do that and better. I will ask him his hat size and stick a tape measure around his head, if he'll let me. I work in fashion so I'm used to getting measured all the time but some people might not be comfortable with it.

That'd be great if you can get both pictures of Bob, and actual measurements....including his head.


Measurements of Bob's head could be very useful, because, from those numbers....we could construct (reverse-engineer ) a full-size model of a 'Patty head' which would just fit around Bob's head....and would also match the angles of Patty's head...(which can be accurately measured)...

Such a model could then be used to see if Bob's head could have actually fit inside of Patty's head....by taking pictures of the re-constructed Patty-head, scaling them to actually match Patty's head, and determining what the resultant body-height would be...(working from the known numbers).


My thinking is that a reconstructed Patty-head will result in a body height for Patty which is several inches taller than Bob's.


The reason why I think this is because of all of the direct comparisons between Bob and Patty. They seem to show that if their body-heights are matched-up...Bob's head is too large.
And if the images are scaled so that Bob's head fits inside of Patty's....then his body height comes out significantly shorter than Patty's.

 

[GT/CS]

A suit.


Duh.

Haven't people here been trying to explain that to you for the past few years?

It's good to see that you finally grasped the concept.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The reason why I think this is because of all of the direct comparisons between Bob and Patty. They seem to show that if their body-heights are matched-up...Bob's head is too large.

Yeah, you keep saying this but everytime we show this isn't the case, you change your argument to Bob's head is too square or not pointy enough. I keep showing this isn't the case but you keep saying it like a broken record.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Yeah, you keep saying this but everytime we show this isn't the case, you change your argument to..

I've never changed my argument, regarding Bob's head.

I think that it's too large....too 'squar-ish'....not pointy enough....not sloped enough....etc...


The problem here is that you do not understand the concept that something can be explained in more than ONE way....using different words.


Apparently, you're also having trouble understanding the difference between 'plant' and 'animal'...

Here is something that I know you can really appreciate....and understand, Astro......

 

[Vortigern99]

Mr. Yeti, if it's a mask then the apparent shape of the head can easily be modified to include features that do not exist on the actor inside the suit. Crests, cones, slopes... none of these need be present on Bob (or whoever) in order to be present on the suit.

Motion blur and the limitations of the film resolution also account for severe variations in the apparent shape of the figure's head from frame to frame.

One would think these assertions are so obvious one would not need to point them out.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

You'd just have to trust me

Bobby really should have put a helmet on. It would make it much safer when he decides to fly.

Nevermind that, I see you're typical thinking skills are flexing again. See, you're implication is that I could not be trusted to not leak information to Bob Heironimus before interviewing him on camera.

Let's think about this. So I would intentionally and completely defeat the sole purpose for traveling to Yakima? Every cent spent, every mile crossed, every minute of my own personal time invested into establishing the truth of Heironimus' claim of being Patty would be for a lie? I suppose the logic would be that I would burn money, time, and effort to knowingly collaborate in some sort of conspiracy against Bigfootery with Bob Heironimus to make his claims appear true when I know they are not. I'm not really interested in truth, I just reeeeaaallly need PGF fans to think BH was Patty. Need to the level of throwing money at it.

You know, Sweaty, I'm not even slightly interested in whatever your brilliant-in-your-mind question is. I would not be surprised at all if it was just more Sweaty gobbledy-gook. Keep it right there in you Bigfoot, Martian, UFO-filled mind where it will stay. If the sky should fall and you somehow in your life should ever come across Bob, let him have it. The flaw of my meeting with Bob is that it is totally possible that I might leak information to him regarding what I will ask him. The only thing that prevents me from doing that is the kind of common sense a twelve year old could employ.

What's really funny is the Bigfoot fanatic who has a lying problem is questioning my honesty. I don't feel even a little concerned that my integrity here might be questioned.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Bobby really should have put a helmet on. It would make it much safer when he decides to fly.

Nice picture......I must say.

Nevermind that, I see you're typical thinking skills are flexing again.

See, you're implication is that I could not be trusted to not leak information to Bob Heironimus before interviewing him on camera.

My reasoning is based on a basic principle....not on a question of an individual's honesty, or trustworthiness.


The principle is this...

A question intended to 'trip someone up', or 'expose' them...(In this case....it involves BOTH Heironimus and Gimlin)...should be asked by a person who sits on the opposite side of the fence....because then the possibility of that person being 'tipped off' ahead of time is ELIMINATED.

As long as that possibility is there....(i.e...a skeptic asking Heironimus questions thought-up by a 'Footer')....then the answer, potentially, loses it's weight....due to the 'uncertainty' involved.


This principle applies in a courtroom, also....where lawyers on opposite sides of a disputed matter DO NOT SHARE THEIR QUESTIONS with the other side.


The principle applies equally to questions being asked of Gimlin. Questions which Bigfoot skeptics think-up, and are intended to expose Gimlin's (supposed) lies....should be asked by a skeptic.....not given to, and then asked by, someone who's sitting on the same side of the fence as Gimlin.


And...as you stated...you're sitting on Heirony's side of the fence, at the moment...

I am one of a number of skeptics that are of the position that your husband, Bob, was telling the truth with his claim of being "Patty",

kitakaze foolishly wrote:

You know, Sweaty, I'm not even slightly interested in whatever your ... question is.

If you were truly interested in whether or not Bob is being honest....you would be interested.


Busted.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mr. Yeti, if it's a mask then the apparent shape of the head can easily be modified to include features that do not exist on the actor inside the suit. Crests, cones, slopes... none of these need be present on Bob (or whoever) in order to be present on the suit.

I agree.....suits can indeed change the appparent shape, and size of the person inside the suit.

Thanks for the reminder, Vort!


Now....we need to do a more precise analysis. Pictures and measurements of Heironimus will help make that analysis a little more precise, and meaningful.

Motion blur and the limitations of the film resolution also account for severe variations in the apparent shape of the figure's head from frame to frame.

Yeah....the quality of this image is terrible, isn't it...

I bet the shape of her head is severely different in the next frame.