Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
kitakaze said:
Here's something for Sweaty to play with...

Sweaty, doing comparisons between Patty and ballerinas is fine and well, but I put something more appropriate together for you. How about you run your "elbow reach analyisis" on this guy here...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2693

Bob Heironimus is just about 6'2" and you think Patty is taller than that. Let's put aside the 72"/6ft ballerina and Bob for a moment. Let's give this guy a height of over 6'2". Let's say a conservative 6'4" for what Patty would be, either real Bigfoot or guy with great big shoulder pads and a padded helmet.

How does this guy come out in your " elbow reach analysis" when compared to Patty? Remember, I know his real height and his real arm length.
Click to expand...


Here is how the guy compares with Patty....as far as his body proportions go...


PattyManElbowReachComp1.jpg



I scaled Patty so that her 'walking height' is a little shorter than his 'standing height'....then I chose a height of 72"...and measured their 'elbow reaches'.

I drew a line where his arm/elbow would be, if his arm was out at an angle comparable to Patty's...about 45-degrees. The length of his arm is 98 pixels, in both positions highlighted.


(The man's exact height doesn't matter, when comparing his body proportions to Patty's body proportions.)


Patty's elbow-reach doesn't have any correction factor applied, to adjust for it's fore-shortened length...so the difference may actually be a little greater than what the graphic shows.

The only unknown factor, in Patty's measurement, is how much the reach is distorted by the fact that Patty's arm is swung slightly forward...(making the 'reach' appear longer than it actually is.)
But the graphic with the Ballet teacher shows that that error-factor would only be a minor error, and may just about 'equal out' the fore-shortening error-factor.
 
Last edited:
wolftrax said:
Patterson's book has the silvery sasquatch sighting in it, right at the end and with a sketch, I can post that later if you want.
Click to expand...

Sure (although you might want to read further before scanning anything).

Anybody know where this whole Pattesron and Merrit worked at Corriganville thing originated from? Was it just from Dfoot, or somewhere else? I'd really like some osrt of reliable source of confirmation of that, "Crash" being the gorilla man guy.
Click to expand...

I think that idea mutated out of Dfoot discussing Merrit and Patterson trying to make their own Corriganville clone, which is apparently covered in Long's book.

If you have those images, I'd like to see them, just to be sure they weren't wearing lycra or spandex body suits to absorb the sweat and prolong the life of the rubber suit. This would be a much lighter material than a sweat suit or regular clothing, and Patty's case may actually be integral to the suit.
Click to expand...

I've been looking for a looooong time and still haven't gone through all my old posts that mention Godzilla/found the sweatsuit pic involving Haruo Nakajima emerging from an old school G suit. I did find a picture of the 90's G-actor wearing a tank top in his suit, which is odd considering how Nakajima got blisters on his skin from the original Godzilla suit.

You know, maybe I only saw the sweatsuit picture(s) here and got them mixed up with my posts. Correa, did you post anything like what I'm talking about?

If you want, you could contact August Ragone about the existence of such pictures or search Youtube for something like "nakajima godzilla behind the scenes." That would probably yield faster results than what my schedule permits.

I haven't had the time to check thoroughly, but some links found here might be of use (although I think the links are text-only), as could this site and the documentary noted here.

As for your bodysuit idea, I'm currently drawing a blank on any examples of someone wearing one under a monster suit. That certainly doesn't mean it hasn't been before, just that I can't offer any commentary other than it does seem like a pretty good idea.

I should note that the following responses are purely hypothetical and are an excuse for me to talk monster suits:

Morris's mask may have been totally wrong for what Patterson needed, and granted leather working is what he did, but in light of several other features of the suit and circumstances I see no reason why he wouldn't just make it out of latex.
Click to expand...

A lack of availability or Roger not wanting to spend extra cash on latex when he had lots of leather available. When you get right down to it, costume makers will use whatever they feel is right for the job. This guy used wood chips to make a Bigfoot costume instead of fake fur, bark from palm trees was used for a "Lost in Space" costume, and Paul Blaisdell appears to have had an "anything goes" approach to his wonderful monster suits. I think pages 45-48 (and beyond) of Randy Palmer's Paul Blaisdell, Monster Maker provide some great examples of that.

Could very well be, though a foam latex mask wouldn't be necessary and a bit of overkill in terms of cost and difficulty compared to the result of no facial movement required.
Click to expand...

That would be true, unless the mask was reused from another project (film, stage, made just for fun, etc).

The body suit though, Bob H just tried it on one time before the filming, it was adjusted for him, and if this came from Morris then it was unused. That reduces the chance of stink factor from previous use.
Click to expand...

True (unless he sweat heavily during his first donning of the suit). If we eliminate Morris as the suit provider, then the possibility of the suit (or various suit parts cannibalized to make Patty) having been worn previously increases.

But all of these are valid reasons you point out for it stinks and I don't really have an objection to them. What really bugs me though, about the whole stink thing, is Bob H initially said the suit stank because Roger skinned a dead red horse, and then now with Morris's suiting him up and the recreation he changes the suit to be made of dynel, and only the mask stank.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I share your concern over Bob's changing stories. I seem to recall someone here being led into thinking that Dynel stank as a result of that. As far as I know, Dynel doesn't smell. I also remember the same person wondering if Dynel has a realistic sheen, which it does.

You know, I don't really have anything against Bob H being the guy in the suit. He very well could be, and 40 years later just doesn't have any memory of how it went down, and the people promoting him just filled in the blanks. We tend to go over Gimlin and Patterson's stories with fine toothed combs though, and I think rightfully so, and it just seems with Bob H changing his story all of the time, it just becomes hard to buy. But, he could very well be the guy....
Click to expand...

Even though I don't endorse him as the guy in the suit (due to his changing stories), there was a time when the sorts of things brought up by kitakaze had me convinced that there was something deeper going on. But now I'm becoming more and more convinced that Bob H. figured out that Gimlin would not take legal action (possibly based on his not going after Roger or DeAtely until Dahinden lit a fire under his behind) and that Patricia Patterson couldn't possibly win a legal battle about whether or not the film was real. A lot of the defense given for him as of late sounds exactly like stuff Patterson/Gimlin apologists spout. However, Bob providing some better quality evidence to prove his claims would make me change my mind.

Great to hear your thoughts on this, Atomic, the whole costume aspect is my favorite part of discussing this film.

Hey, could you give a little more background on what you do for that horror website, I read the link about knock off masks, do you guys go into costumes and how they were made?
Click to expand...

Thanks! To clarify, that humor piece involving the foam latex mask was for a good friend's site, URBMN, and not for Gravedigger's Local 16. However, that friend does contribute to GdL16 and certain aspects of the other members' posting styles are influenced by his work at URBMN.

As for GdL16, I do one "AMM post" a month and have the unofficial position of being in charge of posts regarding Godzilla's birthday. I have known to log into the site's Twitter feed and participate in making posts by the "Front Office" as well. I originally only did promotion for the site, but was invited on to do (among other topics) an article on copyrights and the public domain, which is now indefinitely on hold.

The only articles that I'm aware of that come close to what you describe were an entry providing resources on mask-making and a discussion of a proposed Pinhead redesign with a sfx artist. I am planning on repurposing much of my suit notes here for future entries, though.
 
News update.

I'll be speaking with Greg Long tomorrow by phone. If anyone has suggestions for questions for Long, feel free to post them.

One thing I was surprised to discover is that Greg Long had a falling out with Kal Korff, who wrote the foreward to The Making of Bigfoot, got the book published, pitched the book to the publisher, wrote small portions of the book and assisted in editing the book.

Greg Long had his laywer send Korff a letter threatening to sue for libel and slander if Korff were to claim responsibility for anything to do with the book. Surprisingly, Greg also told Bob Heironimus that he would not be needed after the book was published. Finally, I had no idea Greg Long was such a devout Christian, but after reading his book, I am not surprised. I don't mean to imply that Greg's religion is any sort of character flaw, but it does help to understand some of his thoughts regarding Roger Patterson.

Check this out...

 
Misc notes:

I'd love to get some hard confirmation on the airport issue, which could potentially kill the excuse by some proponents that the film was merely lumped in with another flight.

In regard to the brief comments about Zana, meet Julia Pastrana.

Here's an oldie but goodie:

"Oh, and pages 89-96 and 113-115 of this preview for Anatomy of a Beast: Obsession and Myth on the Trail of Bigfoot by Michael McLeod have some really interesting details about the PGf. Page 113 is especially interesting to me because it notes that DeAtely gave Gimlin $700 at the time he was booted off the film's earning stream."

Perhaps Gimlin thought (or Patterson and DeAtely thought he thought) he couldn't sue since he had already accepted payment/agreed to get bought out. Or then again, Patterson could have suffered from some condition that compelled him to screw over people (as many in Yakima had experienced).

Finally here's a suit note "trilogy" of sorts.
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
Even though I don't endorse him as the guy in the suit (due to his changing stories), there was a time when the sorts of things brought up by kitakaze had me convinced that there was something deeper going on. But now I'm becoming more and more convinced that Bob H. figured out that Gimlin would not take legal action (possibly based on his not going after Roger or DeAtely until Dahinden lit a fire under his behind) and that Patricia Patterson couldn't possibly win a legal battle about whether or not the film was real. A lot of the defense given for him as of late sounds exactly like stuff Patterson/Gimlin apologists spout. However, Bob providing some better quality evidence to prove his claims would make me change my mind.
Click to expand...

I agree that Bob's testimony has problems. The wallet thing is weird, as well as the glass eye. I'll be talking with Bob about it after he comes home on Thursday. I said earlier...

Personally, I think Bob came to Bluff Creek either October 16th or 18th, possibly. I base this on that fact that he said to Greg Long that Roger and Bob came to his house in Gimlin's one ton truck to get Chico on a Friday or Saturday (Oct 13th or 14th) and that he was told to come later and left on maybe a Monday or Wednesday. If Chico was gone eight days and Roger and Bob left Bluff Creek the morning of Saturday, October 21st, the timing is perfect.

Atomic, let's assume BH is lying. Why did Bob try to protect Patterson and deny any involvement in both the South Fork documentary and being in the suit when Greg Long first comes to him? Why does he pass not one, but two polygraphs later when he comes out? Why does he screw his friend who lives on the same street as him? Why does he maintain a relationship with Gimlin if he did? Why doesn't Gimlin sue Heironimus? Why doesn't Patty? She's gotten money hand over fist for the film.

Also, I really need to ask Bob about this grey horsehide suit thing.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for not finding any significant error in my man/Patty 'elbow-reach' comparison, kitakaze....:)....as always, you never can.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Thanks for not finding any significant error in my man/Patty 'elbow-reach' comparison, kitakaze....:)....as always, you never can.
Click to expand...

SweatyYeti, why do you say that? I never agreed to do any such thing. I agreed to show the specific errors in your comparisons once you agreed to engage in normal human discussion on equal terms where the questions of both parties are addressed with equal honesty and sincerity.

Will you do that? Yes or no.
 
kitakaze said:
SweatyYeti, why do you say that?
Click to expand...

Because it's true.


I agreed to show the specific errors in your comparisons once you agreed to engage in normal human discussion on equal terms where the questions of both parties are addressed with equal honesty and sincerity.

Will you do that? Yes or no.
Click to expand...



'Normal' human discussion doesn't consist of twisting/distorting/misrepresenting a large percentage of what the other person says......as you consistently do, in your responses to my statements and graphics.

That being the case....you can take your offer of "Normal human conversation", and........Swing it!!...:p
 
Sweaty, I've already shown several reasons that your elbow-reach analysis is deeply flawed. You ignore these, pretending that I never posted them or that I don't exist, in favor of playing word-games with Kitakaze, demonstrating yet again that you have no interest in rational debate.
 
Vortigern99 said:
Sweaty, I've already shown several reasons that your elbow-reach analysis is deeply flawed. You ignore these, pretending that I never posted them or that I don't exist, in favor of playing word-games with Kitakaze, demonstrating yet again that you have no interest in rational debate.
Click to expand...


Feel free to demonstrate....(show)...specifically where, and to what extent, there are any significicant errors in my measurements, and comparisons, Vort. :)
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
'Normal' human discussion doesn't consist of twisting/distorting/misrepresenting a large percentage of what the other person says......as you consistently do, in your responses to my statements and graphics.
Click to expand...

Sweaty, you constantly distort what skeptics say. You can't engage in discussion with one without distorting what they say and making strawmen. Saying that skeptics treat anyone who even considers the chance of Bigfoot existing is a prime example.

You simply fear to discuss issues about the PGF that are strong indicicators of a hoax. That is the sign of a fanatic and someone with an inability to be intellectually honest. What's that? Roger pulled a Babe Ruth and told his financier that he's going to Bluff Creek to film a Bigfoot and make them rich?

Sorry, Sweaty can't respond because he's huddling in a corner.

That being the case....you can take your offer of "Normal human conversation", and........Swing it!!...:p
Click to expand...

That being the case...

SweatyYeti said:
Unlike skeptics here, who time and time again refuse to answer questions (examples later), I'll never refuse to answer any questions....which are relevant to the subject of Bigfoot, that is.
Click to expand...

 
kitakaze wrote:
What's that? Roger pulled a Babe Ruth and told his financier that he's going to Bluff Creek to film a Bigfoot and make them rich?
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example of the "Critical Thinker's" 'have it both ways' logical reasoning......A.K.A......"Everything points towards a hoax!!!"


It works like this....:D...


Scenario #1:

Man wanders/mozies/staggers through the wilderness....doesn't come across a Bigfoot.....and "Critical Thinker" concludes...."HA!! I knew it....Bigfoot is a Myth!!!" :rolleyes:


Scenario #2:

People find Bigfoot tracks in a wilderness area...Man goes and wanders/rides horsey/staggers around the wilderness area...(which has potential Bigfoot tracks in it)....and, after a week or two, comes out of wilderness with Film of said Beast....and the "Critical Thinker" concludes....."HA!! I knew it....Bigfoot is a HOAX...it's a Myth!!!" :rolleyes:



"From the Superior mind comes Superior Logic" ;)



Btw...what would Roger have been expected to say to his financier....."Please loan us a big chunk of money, sir....I seriously doubt we'll actually cross paths with this thing....it being a myth, and all....but, hey, you just never know!! What do you say??!" :o
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
Sweaty, you constantly distort what skeptics say. You can't engage in discussion with one without distorting what they say and making strawmen. Saying that skeptics treat anyone who even considers the chance of Bigfoot existing is a prime example.

You simply fear to discuss issues about the PGF that are strong indicicators of a hoax. That is the sign of a fanatic and someone with an inability to be intellectually honest. What's that? Roger pulled a Babe Ruth and told his financier that he's going to Bluff Creek to film a Bigfoot and make them rich?

Sorry, Sweaty can't respond because he's huddling in a corner.
Click to expand...


kitakaze's latest Blab-alicious post.


In actual fact, kitakaze, I'm huddling behind....in front of...and right beside...my Patty 'elbow-reach' measurements, and the Patty/Bob comparisons.........the ones you can't refute. :)
 
Atomic, excellent posts! Outstanding sources. I've got to run but had to read what what was written, and of course I'm going to be spending a lot more time later reading these excellent links. Thanks!
 
kitakaze wrote:
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
"Unlike skeptics here, who time and time again refuse to answer questions (examples later), I'll never refuse to answer any questions....which are relevant to the subject of Bigfoot, that is"
Click to expand...
I still stand by that statement of mine....(which I made before I decided that kitakaze was a complete and total waste of my time to try to have a normal discussion with.)


The point of the statement is simply that there is NO (Bigfoot-related) question that a skeptic can ask me, that I am afraid to answer.


I'll answer any question...as long as it's asked by someone other than kitakaze, and it's asked over on Melissa's Board.
 
AtomicMysteryMonster wrote:
However, Bob providing some better quality evidence to prove his claims would make me change my mind.
Click to expand...


Actually, he could start by providing some evidence, and then work up to "better quality", from there! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom