Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it depends on what you're really trying to get out of the interview/bit. If you're simply wanting to hear him tell his 'story', apprising him of the questions would be totally acceptable I think. But if trying to determine his veracity, NO WAY, tight film schedule or not. No way you'll get naked truth if he's forewarned. Will viewers of the documentary 'know' you gave him the questions up front (if you do)? And are there really any questions where it's obvious he'll have trouble, which could then consume copious amounts of time to answer? Like you said, even if he's forewarned he's probably not gonna have time to research any answers, but he can tell you which ones he won't answer, or worse, ones you better not ask.

The honesty part of a 'good honest documentary' has to extend to the entire process, no matter how painful, awkward, mundane, whatever it is to produce. And trust me, I absolutely believe you're wanting it to be done honestly, ergo the advice. :)
 
Let me ask you, is it unreasonable for Phil to ask to have a look at the questions the day before his filmed interview?


No...it's not unreasonable for Phil to ask to see the questions ahead of time....especially if he's been lying, since, in that scenario...he would have good reason to ask. (To protect his 'hide'.)


But that wasn't what I said in my post, was it? :)

(Yet another example of a kitakaze distortion)


Here is what I said...

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.


That's how it works in court trials.....


You didn't disagee with the 'courtroom analogy', kitakaze....and for good reason.....it's 100% valid.
 
If I gave a list of questions to Morris and he says, "Sorry, this one I can't do," - that is the one I will be most interested in. I still have the option to call Phil and tell him for the purposes of the documentary process, I can't give him any questions ahead of time. There is actually one question that I know we can't discuss on tape, and that is in regards to anything about the Lyons Partnership vs Morris Costumes copyright infringement case in which Lyons tried and failed to sue Morris Costumes. Lyons Partnership in Texas had the intellectual property rights to Barney and Friends, the children's television show, and in the late 90's when Barney became a hit went on an excessive litigation spree suing anyone that had something that looked even remotely like Barney. But don't take my word for it...

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/179/179.F3d.384.98-11003.html

http://barney.wikia.com/wiki/Barney_Lawsuits

http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/qbarneyq-owner-promises-to-back-off-parody-site.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-157009421.html

Morris Costumes was one of the few businesses attacked by Lyons Partnership that had the capital to go up against them and defend themselves against Lyons Partnerships suing spree. Phil has signed a legally binding agreement not to publicly comment on the case, which was actually a big fat deal for anyone interested in studying copyright law.

In any event, I have to make a choice in interviewing Phil and his wife, Amy, between having absolutely no prior knowledge of the questions I ask and not chewing up time with things that Phil either doesn't know or doesn't remember. My preference is to lean to the former. I've spoken with Phil many times and tried to throw zingers at him. He has always answered immediately and sincerely, IMO, of course. Often the answers were involving suit making processes which were akin to me explaining turntables, mixers, and samplers to him. That's why I've sought out people that know better than me what Phil is talking about to compose questions that should mess him all up if he is lying. I'm also assisting in arranging for this to be done on internet radio so those same people can go straight to him and ask him themselves.
 
kitakaze wrote:
I still have the option to call Phil and tell him for the purposes of the documentary process, I can't give him any questions ahead of time.


And!!.....nobody will ever KNOW that you didn't give him questions ahead of time.....AND!!....the reason for that is simple....because you're on the same side of the fence as Morris!

See how that works?!
 
No...it's not unreasonable for Phil to ask to see the questions ahead of time....especially if he's been lying, since, in that scenario...he would have good reason to ask. (To protect his 'hide'.)

Good. You agree with me that it is not unreasonable. Please give a sincere answer if you are capable to the following question...

If Phil is not lying about actually having sold Patterson a gorilla suit 43 years ago, why is it reasonable for him to ask me to see questions for a filmed interview for a documentary one or two days in advance of that interview?


But that wasn't what I said in my post, was it? :)

(Yet another example of a kitakaze distortion)

Here is what I said...

You didn't disagee with the 'courtroom analogy', kitakaze....and for good reason.....it's 100% valid.

No, 12 Monkeys, I do not disagree that it would be ideal if Phil was interviewed by someone who does not think he is telling the truth. What is important is that person be informed and have the right questions to ask, not simply by virtue of whether or not they believe Morris. I do think he did sell Patterson a suit, although I'm not totally convinced yet that that is the suit in the PGF. All I can do is be skeptical and approach the situation in a skeptical manner. I learn and bring the questions from the people who knew better than me. It would be great if those people came forward to do what I'm doing, but I don't see anyone around me doing that.

You're not doing that. You're a do-nothing nobody farting about with scribbles and bits achieving nothing more than minor note for irritation and nonsense. Would you be the right person from the other side of the fence to interview Phil? I dare say not, man. Your fence is not even on the same planet. It's in that La La Land where Martians and Bigfoots prance about and communicating in tie-dye ransom note rants seems like effective communication. If you talk anything like you post, Phil would be asking the hotel security to remove Cadet Zed from the building.

You keep to your scribbles and rants, and meanwhile, people with drive and focus like myself will go out and provide you with the things to scribble on and rant about so you can carry on your bleak mental obsession with boogey monsters while Bigfoot continues to never be found.

Now, here is what you didn't do, predictably. You omitted the following questions...

1) Are questions from a person who thinks Phil is lying that of someone one on 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?

Once again, Sweaty - Are questions from an informed person who thinks Morris is a liar and seeks to expose him as such with those questions that of someone on his side of the fence?
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
If Phil is not lying about actually having sold Patterson a gorilla suit 43 years ago, why is it reasonable for him to ask me to see questions for a filmed interview for a documentary one or two days in advance of that interview?

If he is telling the truth (which seems highly unlikely given the issues brought up about him here), shouldn't he be able to answer them in a way that proves his innocence without having any prior knowledge of the questions?
 
Do it. Please do it right now.

You know, Atomic, I think you're right. That's the way I want it and since you're one of the main people giving me the ammo to fire with, I would respect your input. If you think about it, more than anything, simply my calling and telling Phil I think we need to preserve the essence of the interview and not allow for the possibility of research of the questions by him to occur could be enough for me personally to get a measure of his truthfulness. Because that is what this is all about - trying to get down to the truth. If he says no prep time is a gamebreaker, that right there gives me ample enough reason to consider that Phil might not be telling the truth.

BTW, I'm also thinking about asking Phil to undergo a polygraph for the documentary project, whatever that's worth.

Got a phone call to make.
 
You know, Atomic, I think you're right. That's the way I want it and since you're one of the main people giving me the ammo to fire with, I would respect your input. If you think about it, more than anything, simply my calling and telling Phil I think we need to preserve the essence of the interview and not allow for the possibility of research of the questions by him to occur could be enough for me personally to get a measure of his truthfulness. Because that is what this is all about - trying to get down to the truth. If he says no prep time is a gamebreaker, that right there gives me ample enough reason to consider that Phil might not be telling the truth.

Thank you, I greatly appreciate your doing that.

BTW, I'm also thinking about asking Phil to undergo a polygraph for the documentary project, whatever that's worth.

Aren't polygraphs woo?
 
Thank you, I greatly appreciate your doing that.

Success!

I just got off the phone with Phil. I layed out the situation and explained how I want to try as much as possible to silence any naysayers who would say Phil researched the questions I gave him to formulate the best possible answer by not allowing him to see the questions well in advance of the interview. Now, Phil didn't just say OK and roll with it. He said to me that the essential problem for him is that in all the time he's been in the entertainment business he never appears on camera without knowing what he is doing or what he's going to be talking about. As a person also in the entertainment business, though nowhere as near as long as him, I completely understand his desire not to fumble around with things he doesn't know.

He said of the people who would have an issue with him seeing the questions a day or two in advance, he has no interest in whether they believe him or not. I told Phil that my project has nothing to do with trying to convince Bigfoot fanatics with a religious investment in the Hope for Bigfoot anymore than I would be interested in convincing Muslim fundamentalists that there are not 99 virgins waiting for them in Paradise. The main point was that I wanted to bring something to rational people interested in the topic to know about the history and to address any doubts or misconceptions they had.

We continued to discuss the issue a bit and talk about Patterson and his film, as well as Gimlin and Pat Patterson, and Phil made an excellent suggestion with which I was very happy to agree. Phil said that if it was really important to me, he wouldn't need to see the questions today or tomorrow at all. He asked only that when I come and meet him at the hotel and we sit down to dinner, I have the questions then that I can show him on paper or whatever so he's not totally blind when the camera goes on. That works perfectly for me as there is simply no way Phil can research the questions or get any support. It is going to be only him, his wife if she joins us then, myself and my cameraman. After dinner we walk over to the Royal BC Museum, do an intro shot for Phil, myself, the PGF, the museum, etc, then head back to the hotel for the main interview. Bingo bango, it's in the bag.

Phil is coming to see me on his dime and his time and I think he has been extremely gracious and accommodating. Think about this: I could totally screw him. I could be ninja-footbot in disguise that was setting him up. I could manipulate and cut the video anyway I want and rip all over Youtube making him look bad. He did not even understand Youtube before I showed him himself on it. Phil is confident enough in himself and his story to come and sit down to an in-depth discussion knowing full well he will be facing the toughest questions his doubters can come up with. I think that says something.

For the meatball fanatics like Sweaty who want rub their hands together and cackle about my nefarious collusion with Philip Morris to boonswoggle the Bigfoot nation into believing him I say, go fly a UFO. You're a koo koo for cocoa puffs Bigfoot fanatic suckling on the teat of woo, living in a Bizarro World and I couldn't care less what backflips you need to do to maintain your clinghold on your goofball fantasies.
 
Best wishes!

No, I am not sure about who made the costume and who wore it. I welcome, however, any new info on the usual suspects, even tough the real Kaiser Soze might well be hiding.

But think of it- we have people "coming out of the closet" about building and wearing the costume, but real bigfoot bodies are always kept locked inside secret PNW closets...
 
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?


Well, in order to test the claim by Heironimus...that he was Patty...we don't necessarily need to know what Patty's actual height was.

We can make comparisons of Bob's and Patty's 'body proportions'....assuming a height for Patty which she would have had, if she were, in fact, a "Heirony-in-the-suit".

That 'standing height' would have to have been about 2-3 inches taller than Bob's standing height...due to the cone-shaped headpiece.

If Bob's height is 6'0"...then Patty's 'standing height' would have been just about 6'2-6'3". Her 'walking height' would have been several inches shorter than that.



So...I've compared the lengths/proportions of certain skeletal structures, between Bob and Patty, which determine the 'length that their elbows can reach, laterally, from the center of their bodies'....('Elbow Reach')

Those skeletal structures are the upper-arm bones and the collar bones.


Patty happens to appear to have exceptionally long bones in both of those areas...(extremely wide upper-torso, and unusually long arms).

If these extra-long dimensions are due to skeletal structure...then her elbows MUST reach significantly further-away from her backbone than Heironimus' do....and, conversely...if this apparent difference is due completely to padding, then her elbows will reach EXACTLY the same distance away from her backbone, as Bob's do.


In all of the measurements I've made so far....they measure a significantly further distance away....not....exactly the same.

This means.....there's a difference in skeletal structure...between the two. Bob cannot be Patty. :)


(Note...the 'Arm Gap/Humerus Triangle' measurements support and confirm what the elbow-reach measurements show.)


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.
I'll respond to those questions.....as soon as I can, River. :)
 
Last edited:
We've already seen that Patty's head shape appears to vary quite a bit, according to the frame and source your are using.

So to say flat out that we need to add 2-3 inches because it's cone shaped is disingenuous, of course.

Patty's head certainly appears cone shaped at times, but it also appears dead flat at times.
 
That 'standing height' would have to have been about 2-3 inches taller than Bob's standing height...due to the cone-shaped headpiece.

Pre- or post-piano?

picture.php


picture.php
 
It's very hard to do a meaningful analysis of photographs when one is incapable of seeing that the blob is blobby.
 
Bobby-Boo is still having a tough time matching-up with Patty...:).....(even over-scaled, his upper arm is still too short for the elbow-joints to line-up)...


PattysLongUpperArm1A.jpg




....and kitakaze is having an even tougher time trying to find where the errors are, in these comparisons.


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

NEVER. :)
 
It's very hard to do a meaningful analysis of photographs when one is incapable of seeing that the blob is blobby.


It is very hard for Hitch to find a way to make Bobby-Boo and Patty match-up really, really nicely. :)

Isn't that right, Hitch?
 
Note that Sweaty will not discuss the problem of Patty Conehead and Patty Headcavedin. It's an instant deek everytime it comes up.
 
Sweaty, you still have not shown that you are looking at the true length of Bob or Patty's upper arm. Are they both parallel to the camera lens? Please show your work.
 
Bobby-Boo is still having a tough time matching-up with Patty...:).....(even over-scaled, his upper arm is still too short for the elbow-joints to line-up)...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/PattyElbowAnalysisFour/PattysLongUpperArm1A.jpg[/qimg]

....and kitakaze is having an even tougher time trying to find where the errors are, in these comparisons.

I won't spam this thread with the same images over and over as you do, but I will ask you, do I have an image of Bob in a suit and Patty in which the eyes, elbows, and knees line up?

Also, as you know have read, Phil and I have agreed that he will not see the questions I will ask him on camera until I meet him face to face. Phil's at his son's graduation now. He really does have better things to do than try and figure how to please fanatic losers. People from all corners of Bigfoot nation are submitting good questions to me for when I sit down with Phil tomorrow.

Again I ask you, are questions from an informed person who thinks Morris is a liar and seeks to expose him as such with those questions that of someone on his side of the fence?


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

Zed, when you produce reliable measurements, you let us know. Until then, use a beat when you stutter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom