Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Blackdog]

Where's the link to the results of BH's polygraphs? Just the facts please.

I never claimed, or supported the claim, that BH either took or passed a polygraph.
There's a fact for ya.

This business about RP's alleged polygraph test seems to be nothing more than another weak attempt to bolster the story, in fact unlike some of the other anecdotes this one only seems to come up when the claim of BH’s polygraph is mentioned.

 

[William Parcher]

Some references...

85. Harrison, George H. "On The Trail Of Bigfoot." National Wildlife, October-November 1970, pages 4-9. ("[Patterson] instantly agreed to take a lie detector test. The results convinced the experienced polygraph operator that Patterson was not lying).

112. Lie Detector. PAX television, Los Angeles, California. May 17, 2005. (Television). Host Rolanda Watts interviews Bob Heironimus, who claims he was the subject in the P-G film. This show indicated Bob Heironimus passed their lie detector test.

 

[SweatyYeti]

blackdog wrote:

another weak attempt to bolster the story

Likewise....in Bob's case, it would also be WEAK evidence in bolstering his story.

 

[William Parcher]

Critical article...

Heironimus submitted to a lie detector test administered by leading polygraph expert Dr. Ed Gelb to try to prove that he was the infamous creature shot on film in Bluff Creek, California, wearing just a modified gorilla costume, which does not match the figure in the Patterson film. Not even close.

Hosted by Rolonda Watts, "Lie Detector" is a provocative series that examines the truth behind real-life stories ripped from the headlines, using the most powerful instrument to detect deception - the polygraph.

Heironimus took the polygraph on live television and passed the test according to Dr. Ed Gelb, proving once and for all that along with passed polygraphs by serial killers like Ted Bundy, Heironimus believes he was the man in the suit to the degree that he too was able to pass the polygraph.
Is it any wonder the polygraph is not admissible evidence in a court of law?

Additionally, Heironimus footprints do not match those left by the creature in the Patterson Film and he is unable to duplicate the locomotion of the creature filmed by Roger Patteron in October of 1967. The fundamental nature of Heironimus' statement is phoney. He lied and passed the polygraph anyway, just as serial killer Ted Bundy did all the way down death row to the electric chair.

 

[William Parcher]

Questions you may want to ask Bob H.

Nearly all of your questions have already been answered by Bob. You really have stayed away from everything surrounding the PGF and only focused on the thing seen on the film.

9. Did the costume have feet larger than you own, and if so, can you describe them?

Would Bigfoot costume feet ever be smaller than the wearer's feet?

 

[rockinkt]

Critical article...

Don't remember Ted Bundy taking a polygraph...can't find any specific details about him taking a polygraph in a quick Google search.
Of course - I'm getting old and forgetful.

 

[kitakaze]

Yup.

In Patty's case......the 'length from the eyes to the elbow-joint'...for any particular arm-angle...(in any direction)....could not have been changed, or altered by padding.

This is due to the fact that, if Patty is a man-in-a-suit, the actor's eyes must be located exactly where Patty's eyes are located....and the actor's elbow-joint must be located exactly where Patty's elbow-joint is located.
(The elbow joint cannot be moved up or down, along the arm, by padding.)

A-ha. Fascinating...

Simple question, Sweaty, just for clarity's sake about the central concept here for the point you're attempting to score...

If I stand in profile from a distance of a point of observation, person, camera, whatever, and I move arms outward away from my body, would the distance between my eyes and elbows appear to change? Yes or no.

Since neither point can be moved, or altered by padding...then the length 'from the eyes to the elbow', of the actor, must match Patty's....when the arms are at comparable angles.

In Bob's case....they don't match.

A-ha. Fascinating...

I'm on ROMPER ROOM! I can do it too.

Why are you using a Giant picture of BobH in relation to Patty?

They look dead-nuts on his elbow is right where it should be if he is in a costume, same with his shoulder, knee and face. Where do u get this stuff?

[qimg]http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7676/pattster.jpg[/qimg]

Sweaty, as you can see I have no fear whatsoever engaging you on elbows or any other point you'd like to discuss. Could you please address the point and questions I've posted about BH's connection to Patterson and Gimlin, as well as the evidence of Roger faking Patty's tracks?

 

[Vortigern99]

Sweaty, let's try a quick experiment to test your claim that "the eye-to-elbow length is unmovable".

Go ahead and lower your head on your shoulders without moving your arm or elbow. I'll wait for a moment while you do this.

Did you notice how your eyeline -- entrenched in the middle of your head as it is -- moved downward when you moved your head downward?

Would you agree, then, with the observation that this downward movement of the eyeline reduces the distance between the eye and the elbow?

Do you see now what Kitakaze, and everyone else with a rational mind capable of grasping reasonable concepts, is talking about?

And it doesn't matter if you introduce the adverbial phrase "by padding" into this observation, since in the two pictures you insist on comparing, the subjects' heads are located at different points on the shoulders. It's got nothing to do with padding.

 

[William Parcher]

Don't remember Ted Bundy taking a polygraph...

The Enigma of Ted Bundy: Did He Kill 18 Women? Or Has He Been Framed?

His co-workers remember him as violent, especially toward women. He didn't show up for work on the day Campbell was murdered; the next day he picked up his paycheck and left town. (Subsequently he was given a lie detector test and passed.)

 

[kitakaze]

I'm on ROMPER ROOM! I can do it too.

Why are you using a Giant picture of BobH in relation to Patty?

They look dead-nuts on his elbow is right where it should be if he is in a costume, same with his shoulder, knee and face. Where do u get this stuff?

[qimg]http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7676/pattster.jpg[/qimg]

I'm assuming it was for affect. You know, use a great big picture, cut off a foot... whatever gets the affect you're after. Just like he did here...

Nevertheless....here is the same graphic, with a later Frame used as a foot-ruler...and Roger still ends up at very nearly the same...WAY TOO SHORT...height......

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Jim%20McClarin/th_Patty352JimJimWeeRoger5.jpg[/qimg]

My goodness, Sweaty, I am stunned. You once again omitted a central part of my post and failed to address a key point. It is as if you are not able to handle the argument. Here, let me replace what you left out...

Secondly, and far more importantly, there is absolutely no reliable evidence that the subject of the Patterson film made any of the impressions Patterson cast. Conversely, there is significant evidence that Roger faked his casts. Those are two left feet. They are not the same feet.

If Patty's feet and Patty's casts are not the same thing, then any comparison you make assuming they are is totally meaningless. To what extent is the degree of error? Pick a number. Based just on the issues you had with Frame 72 before, you'd be off by several inches. What the real extent is can not be reliably measured. All we can say is... Controls not set. Comparison invalid.

Of course, of direct relevance is the post by River concerning foot rulers and track depth that you still haven't addressed. Here's a snip...

The foot as a ruler should corroborate the other photogrammetry method. (distance, focal lengh, percentage of full frame) It doesnt. This would imply that the trackway may have been fabricated.

That's a fun new scribble you made up there. Is there any reason why you cut off Roger's left foot? I'm assuming it was for effect.

We can always rely on Sweaty to cut corners (or feet!) and manipulate things to fit his preconceived notion.

 

[Bill Munns]

WP:

"Nearly all of your questions have already been answered by Bob. You really have stayed away from everything surrounding the PGF and only focused on the thing seen on the film. "

It's my understanding that a good investigation does ask a person the same questions asked previously, to test the continuity or consistancy of the interviewee's testimony.


Quote (Bill Munns): "9. Did the costume have feet larger than you own, and if so, can you describe them? "

WP:
"Would Bigfoot costume feet ever be smaller than the wearer's feet? "

The alternative to costume feet larger than your own is costume feet the same size as your own.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty, let's try a quick experiment to test your claim that "the eye-to-elbow length is unmovable".

Go ahead and lower your head on your shoulders without moving your arm or elbow. I'll wait for a moment while you do this.

Did you notice how your eyeline -- entrenched in the middle of your head as it is -- moved downward when you moved your head downward?

Would you agree, then, with the observation that this downward movement of the eyeline reduces the distance between the eye and the elbow?

Do you see now what Kitakaze, and everyone else with a rational mind capable of grasping reasonable concepts, is talking about?

And it doesn't matter if you introduce the adverbial phrase "by padding" into this observation, since in the two pictures you insist on comparing, the subjects' heads are located at different points on the shoulders. It's got nothing to do with padding.

Vort resorts to insults.....of course. It's the JREF way.


Vort....I am not claiming that the length between a person's eyes and their elbow cannot change. Of course it does. But, it cannot be altered with padding....(in this particular case, that we're dealing with.)


In the comparison graphic I posted earlier today...Bob's and Patty's arms are at slightly different angles, in their swing...and those different angles create an 'error factor'.....which can be easily corrected for.

The same thing holds true if the heads are held at different angles.
Any minor error factor can be adjusted/corrected for, in these comparisons.

But, nonetheless.....the principle I explained earlier...

This is due to the fact that, if Patty is a man-in-a-suit, the actor's eyes must be located exactly where Patty's eyes are located....and the actor's elbow-joint must be located exactly where Patty's elbow-joint is located.
(The elbow joint cannot be moved up or down, along the arm, by padding.)

Since neither point can be moved, or altered by padding, then the length between them...('from the eyes to the elbow', of the actor)....must match Patty's....when the arms are at comparable angles.

....still holds true. Like it or not.



Now, since Vort is using the "lawyer speak" defense.........to hold on to his "Bobby Dream".....I'll add to that statement...

Since neither point can be moved, or altered by padding, then the length between them...('from the eyes to the elbow', of the actor)....must match Patty's....when the arms....AND HEADS.........are at comparable angles.

Happy now?


Vort wrote:

Go ahead and lower your head

Okay....I lowered it...

Now what do I do???



Can I raise it now, Vort.....I need to go to the bathroom.......

 

[Drewbot]

Quote (Bill Munns): "9. Did the costume have feet larger than you own, and if so, can you describe them? "

We don't even know if the casts came from the costume's feet. Are you implying that the foot shown in the video is smaller(or the same as)the person who is wearing the costume's foot?

 

[SweatyYeti]

We don't even know if the casts came from the costume's feet.

And we don't even know that there were costume feet!

 

[Drewbot]

And we don't even know that there were costume feet!

No, YOU don't know that they were costume feet.

 

[rockinkt]

The Enigma of Ted Bundy: Did He Kill 18 Women? Or Has He Been Framed?

Previously, while researching a five-part series on Bundy, Walsh discovered that seven other men could be linked circumstantially with some or all of Bundy's alleged crimes. "There are five possible 'Teds' in the Seattle area alone," she says. The list includes a convicted sex offender who was living in Seattle at the time of the murders there. He then moved to Aspen, where he took a job at Snowmass, the resort where victim Caryn Campbell was staying. His co-workers remember him as violent, especially toward women. He didn't show up for work on the day Campbell was murdered; the next day he picked up his paycheck and left town. (Subsequently he was given a lie detector test and passed.)

That passage refers to one of the "five possible Teds" (i.e. other possible suspects in the area) - not Bundy.

 

[William Parcher]

Rock, I saw other mentions of Bundy passing polygraph (even passing twice) but none had any references. Maybe it's a myth.

 

[rockinkt]

WP:
<snip>
It's my understanding that a good investigation does ask a person the same questions asked previously, to test the continuity or consistancy of the interviewee's testimony.

So Bill - since you seem to now understand this very important point - why do you pretend that the analysis of the film is of any importance when the facts are that Gimlin's and Patterson's own words show them to be liars?

Their stories changed in major points in pretty well each telling and they contradict themselves and each other in huge, glaring ways.

The multiple and impossible lies regarding how the film was sent for developing must shake you to the very core.

Or - are you only interested in applying your new found investigative skills to everybody except Patterson and Gimlin?

 

[Óðinn]

Rambling thoughts:

* Any photo comparisons must ensure that each photo has the correct aspect ratio. When pictures get digitized and cropped they have a funny habit of getting stretched. You need the full frame and camera specs to confirm the aspect ratio is true. None of these images have this.

* These are 3D objects projected onto a 2D surface. If there is ANY foreshortening that cannot be accounted AND corrected for, then the comparisons lie.

* Horizontal lines cannot be used to connect/compare body parts unless they are in the EXACT same 3D orientation, which is very tricky to confirm.

* All comparisons MUST use the LENGTH of a body part where the ends are points of articulation. These endpoints must be determined using body markers that are tracked over MANY frames as the body articulates thru the walk cycle.

* The Posers can NOT approximate the orientation of Patty if there is any foreshortening of her body parts (which of course there is). Any Poser overlay on an "undistorted" frame from the PGF, that does not fit exactly tells us they do not match. This is the only information that can be gleaned from a scaled comparison. You can only claim that the Poser dimensions match Patty's if EVERY frame fits, perfectly. That has never been the case here.

* The Posers can ONLY be used as a tool to test a model against Patty. A Poser that doesn't have the same dimensions as Patty can still be made to fit over her foreshortened body parts. The fact that some frames didn't fit shows the failing of this approach. You can't prove an average sized human would fit in the suit this way, even with an animation. However, with a single frame you can demonstrate that an averaged sized human does NOT fit.

* Only "unforeshortened" body parts should be used for photo comparisons. We need to track a body part and measure where it's length is at it's greatest relative to the height (constant). At that point there is minimal foreshortening. Track all the body parts this way to build your 3D model.

* The 1st step is to scale "up" each frame to simulate a const distance from the camera because Patty's images get smaller as she moves away from the camera. MK Davis (or Rick Noll) did this for the sequence that MANGLER used for his animation, but I don't trust MK's stuff. And who knows what the aspect ratio is for those images? They were microscoped.

* In summary, IMO the best bet for photo comparisons between Bob H and Patty is to find similarly foreshortened images of their limbs and scale them to match their LENGTHS (not vertical diff or height off the ground, etc.). The same body parts must be used, which must match in 3D orientation. They also must be the same approx. distance from the camera and shot preferably with the same camera. And of course they must have the correct aspect.

A reliable comparison is already pretty restrictive. Which limb bone would be best for this? Arms can be disguised in a suit, but not so much the elbow. Patty's elbows articulate enough to identify them, IMO. But the premise of a limb comparison should be: "Here is the limb inside the suit and here is the actor's limb outside the suit. We can scale them to the same size if they are similarly foreshortened. When you do that, you're left with the size of the suit the actor wore. So then howz the fit?"

Rambling off..

 

[rockinkt]

Rock, I saw other mentions of Bundy passing polygraph (even passing twice) but none had any references. Maybe it's a myth.

I too have seen references to him passing lie detector tests - but I don't remember any actual first person reporting of same.

I took a senior level investigator course many years ago in which his taped interviews were part of the curriculum. I don't remember any discussion of him taking a polygraph.
But - like I said - my memory could be faulty.