Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sweaty, heres a suggestion you may want to consider. Youre comparing Pattersons PGF suit with Blevins home made suit.

Why would it be relevent unless you truly believe that Blevins effort at the suit is a good recreation.


Blevins' suit is relevant....(even if it's not exactly the same as Patty's look/dimensions)....because it demonstrates the simple principle I illustrated in this graphic...


BobTorsoBox6.jpg



It demonstrates the fact that, when padding is added to either the arm, or the upper-body....(or both)...the space between the upper-arm and the upper-body reduces.......rather quickly.

I will be demonstrating this, with my own physical model.....with lots of images, taken from lots of angles, with lots of measurements.




kitakaze wrote:
SweatyYeti wrote:
How can Heironimus have this amount of body width added to him...
You mean the amount between him with no suit on and what we see in the PGF when compared together?

Nothing that cant be accounted for by the use of football shoulder pads...


The question was.....and remains....how can the ARM GAP...(not the "chest width").....be accounted for, in light of the amount of padding required to make Heironimus' chest and shoulder-widths equal to Patty's.....approx. 3" on each side??


That was the question I asked.....and the one that nobody can answer. :)


Another kitakaze distortion. Typical garbage.


You can't deal with reality....can you, pal? :D
 
Last edited:
kitakaze wrote:
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti


Questions intended to expose Morris as being dishonest...are best asked him by someone who is on the "other side of the fence" from Morris....not from someone who's on the same side.
Not when that person is an idiot.
So, in the case of intelligent people....you agree with the principle. :)

This means you think that those questions you've asked for would best be asked by some-one on the 'other side of the fence' from Morris........rather than by YOU.

Thanks for the support, chuckles... :D :D :D



Desperate kitakaze......grasping at (inflammatory) straws....trying to save his sinking ship...:D...


Not when that person is an idiot. :rolleyes:

you're like the creationist who... :p

the same pareidolia insanity that you do with your Mars civilization craziness. :boxedin:


kitakaze....you will NEVER produce an image of Heironimus which replicates Patty's 'elbow-reach', 'arm gap', and 'humerus triangle' measurements.

NEVER. :)
 
Last edited:
Not when that person is an idiot. I can not pretend to not have the opinion Phil Morris sold Roger Patterson a suit. I have multiple sources from different time periods attesting to Roger Patterson buying a gorilla suit who have had no good reason to lie about it.

Um...he apparently only rented it and had to return it. This doesn't match up with Morris' claim of outright selling it.

Also, you have to deal with the fact that while we can demonstrate that Morris has lost money and spent money in regards to the PGF, you've never demonstrated that his company profited from his claim. That is something I can falsify. I can ask Phil to see the figures on Morris Costumes prior to 2004 and after it.

Technically that wouldn't prove anything. Correlation is not causation.
 
Sweaty, I'm starting to doubt if you will ever get it. All youve managed to prove is, Pattersons suit is different than Blevins suit. Congrats on that though.

le sigh. I'm going to have to go back to ignoring your posts because you fail to see the errors in your "beliefs" and or your illustrations, and demonstrations ;) lol


anyways, have fun with that.
 
Sweaty, I'm starting to doubt if you will ever get it. All youve managed to prove is, Pattersons suit is different than Blevins suit. Congrats on that though.

le sigh. I'm going to have to go back to ignoring your posts because you fail to see the errors in your "beliefs" and or your illustrations, and demonstrations ;) lol


Only because you've failed to SHOW where, and to what extent, those errors are.

I appreciate your input....(while it lasted)....nonetheless, River. :)
 
Well, several folks here have tried to show where your errors are but you seemed resistant to accept. Showing the exact extent of error would require a few things we dont have, and in fact.... showing exact anything (including your numbers) is at best an estimation that has a wide range for error.

What we can see is that it is possible for this to have been a man in a suit within the range of normal human porportions. (wearing padded suit) To say this film represents anything more, has yet to have been proven, shown or otherwise confirmed. If you have a valid argument one day, I'll be happy to give my opinion on it. I do appreciate opposing views to my own as well, but not for the sake of an opposing view. For the sake of keeping it real and not making selective/biased claims that are not firmly based with some evidence that is tangible.

The "leg" of the PGF being a film of a real animal is.... and always has been weak at best, and there has never been any proof that it represents more than a man in a costume. If you want to believe bigfoot is real, and the pgf is real than you might be able to find more elbow reach arguments that are never going to be considered viable evidence of this representing a real animal, because you choose to not address important points and or facts that are made that disprove your theories. Its like Bill Munns insisting the film was made with a 15mm lens. Hes probably going to backstep on that eventually, whenever it suits him to do so. (because, obviously he must know by now something that basic after this much study on the dang thing right? :D sorry bill, but keep it real man)

Anyhooo, I dont hold any ill will from your spam lol, I just wish youd make your points a little more well grounded, and based reliable and solid data.

It seems that much of the so called bigfoot evidence shares the same stigma, Unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Well, several folks here have tried to show where your errors are but you seemed resistant to accept.


I don't recall seeing anybody show....demonstrate....where there are any significant errors in my graphics/numbers.

If you know where those posts are, feel free to provide links to them.



Showing the exact extent of error would require a few things we dont have,


If you're lacking key information....then how do you know that my numbers ARE in error???



....and in fact.... showing exact anything (including your numbers) is at best an estimation that has a wide range for error.



These simple measurements are not an "all or nothing"....( "exact" or "wide range of error")...situation.

There certainly is some 'degree of error' in them....but that doesn't equate, necessarily, to them having such a wide range...(or, 'high degree')...of error that they're meaningless.

If you can show where, and to what extent, there are any errors in the numbers, River....go right ahead and do so. :)
 
Last edited:
Ok Sweaty, I'll bite this time.

In order to establish some realm of realism here, lets start with some basic information about the subject seen on film in order to establish things like the margin for error on measurements, or elbow reaches arounds, or whatever it is you want to measure in the film. So lets establish first what you think the size of the subject is, since you seem to have on several occasions produced numbers representing the size of an "elbow reach".

What size is the subject seen on the film in your opinion? Height? Thickness? Weight? What you got? I want to understand how you establish your measurements for those numbers you seem to cherish. And... how did you come to those conclusions? (how did you decide the scale of the subject? based on what measurements etc)

Lets start with some basics like this, before we go any further.
 
The following is an important report regarding my documentary efforts regarding the PGF:

As I earlier reported, Phil Morris is coming to see me in Victoria, BC for the purpose of an interview. This worked out under the circumstances that Phil is attending the graduation of his grandson in Seattle, WA. Phil has arranged at his own personal expense to come to Victoria from Seattle on an overnight trip. He will be staying at a major hotel in downtown Victoria. He arrives on a ferry from Seattle around 6:00 pm on the evening of Wednesday, June 16th, three days from now. He leaves the following morning at 11:00 am. He is now in Seattle.

Over the last couple weeks at least, both Phil and I have been calling each other regarding the upcoming trip. We have often missed connecting due to our schedules and the time difference. Nevertheless, we have been able to work out the details. This is a trip that is completely on Phil's time and money. My original idea was that Phil could arrive at Victoria in the afternoon, and that I could meet him at the ferry terminal or close to it with my cameraman. My goal essentially was to show that any question I asked Phil had no prior discussion and thusly that I was not assisting Phil in any way if he was being deceitful about his claim of selling Roger Patterson a suit in 1967.

This is how the plan has worked out after speaking with Phil on Sunday night...

1) I will meet Phil and his wife at the hotel where they are staying roughly around 7:00 pm. We may possibly have dinner together. The only person accompanying me will be my cameraman.

2) I explained to Phil that we have daylight until 9:30 pm and that I want to shoot and introduction shot at the Royal BC Museum. The museum has a significant place in PGF history. RBCM curator Donald Abbott was one of the first academics involved with the PGF. You can learn more about him here...

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/don-abbott-obit/

My plan is to shoot the intro scene in Thunderbird Park where there is a totem by Kwakwaka'wakw chief Mungo Martin said by Bigfoot proponents to depict Bigfoot.

3) After the intro scene is shot, we will return to the hotel where Phil has reserved a production room to film the interview in which I will ask him all the questions that are meant to expose him as a liar.

I spoke with Phil tonight and told him that I am going to put him on camera and ask him questions submitted by informed people that do not believe he is telling the truth, which would probably last about an hour. It is very important that people understand the short shooting schedule that I have with Phil. I must be absolutely clear - Phil has asked me if he can be forwarded the questions prior to the interview. He said in a short phone conversation that he doesn't want to be stumped on camera not knowing what I am talking about.

As Phil is now in Seattle, he asked me to forward the questions to his daughter's cell phone so he could review them. It took his wife several minutes to get the address. I agreed to this. I asked Phil if I could email the questions to his email address, and he said that it would not work as he didn't think he could access his email while being in Seattle or Victoria in a hotel. I accept this simply because I know that Phil is an elderly man on a family trip and has little to no time to get on the internet and study the barrage of questions I have for him. I personally introduced Phil to Youtube and how to use it. I had him on the phone the very first time he saw himself on Youtube. Phil Morris was born on January 8th, 1935. He is an 80 year old Internet retard. Many of the questions for him I have are obviously my own, but some of the best come from AtomicMysteryMonster. Wolftrax had some very good ones as well, but, wolf, I am terrible - I can't seem to find them right now. I'll keep looking.

Please bear in mind, Phil has received no questions from me as of the time of this post, nor will he have any significant time to research them if he is in fact coming to Victoria to lie to me.
 
kitakaze wrote:
Phil has received no questions from me as of the time of this post, nor will he have any significant time to research them


But he will have time. ;)

There is no 'surprise factor' involved here...in Morris being confronted with questions allegedly intended to expose him...(though those questions are coming from skeptics on the 'same side of the fence' as Morris)......and the amount of time Morris will have to prepare his answers is being told to us by kitakaze, who is sitting on the same side of the fence as the person being....."confronted"...."grilled"..."Investigated".....what a joke. :)


Go get him, Tiger!!! :boggled:
 
Last edited:
Why does Sweaty Yeti keep drawing lines on photographs? Is there a name for this hobby?
 
Ok Sweaty, I'll bite this time.

In order to establish some realm of realism here, lets start with some basic information about the subject seen on film in order to establish things like the margin for error on measurements, or elbow reaches arounds, or whatever it is you want to measure in the film. So lets establish first what you think the size of the subject is, since you seem to have on several occasions produced numbers representing the size of an "elbow reach".

What size is the subject seen on the film in your opinion? Height? Thickness? Weight? What you got? I want to understand how you establish your measurements for those numbers you seem to cherish. And... how did you come to those conclusions? (how did you decide the scale of the subject? based on what measurements etc)

Lets start with some basics like this, before we go any further.


Thanks for the questions, River....I'll respond to them later tonight. :)
 
But he will have time.

Yes, he will. If I get the questions to his daughter's cellphone tomorrow evening, he will have about a day to review them. I am anticipating about an hour filming time in the production room to ask Phil the questions. Let me ask you, is it unreasonable for Phil to ask to have a look at the questions the day before his filmed interview?

There is no 'surprise factor' involved here...in Morris being confronted with questions allegedly intended to expose him...(though those questions are coming from skeptics on the 'same side of the fence' as Morris)......and the amount of time Morris will have to prepare his answers is being told to us by kitakaze, who is sitting on the same side of the fence as the person being.."confronted"...."grilled"..."Investigated".....what a joke. :)

1) Are questions from a person who thinks Phil is lying that of someone one the same side of the fence?

2) What purpose do I have to lie about the time Phil has to look at the questions I give him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom