A person can legitimately have failures of recollection for a real experience. He was there once, and may not recall that distance (40 years later) accurately. He had no reason to remember how far he drove on a dirt road even when he did it at the time. If descrepancies like this are an outright sign of lying, then we have to regard the differing accounts of P&G the same way. It means that if Patterson and Gimlin said different things about the encounter (and they do), then one or both are lying or simply weren't there at all.
Did they differ on anything important?
When one tries to compare the testimony of P&G versus Heironimus, you can't ignore a profound fundamental difference. P&G are making an extraordinary claim in that they say they filmed an unclassified wild bipedal primate in California. Heironimus is making a less than extraordinary claim by saying he wore the suit that was supposed to trick the world into thinking an extraordinary creature had been filmed. To believe P&G you have to accept the existence of Bigfoot, while to believe Heironimus you only need to accept the existence of hoaxery.
I think you have to suspend belief to believe Heironimus. The area had a history of sightings and track events going back many years. I don't think there's anything extraordinary about unidentified hominid primates occupying an area like that. Bluff Creek was adjacent to a 17,500 sq. mi. area that had only been mapped from the air.
The claim of Heironimus with no padding fitting in a suit that would have had to have been half prosthetics is extraordinary to me.
<snip>
The earwitness testimony about him planning this in hopes of getting $50,000 from a tabloid doesn't count, huh?
I thought he changed his position to say that he could have been hoaxed.
Nope. He considered it when the suggestion was made that he and Patterson might have been victims of a hoax. He didn't buy it.
Did Knights set up a lie detector test for Bob Gimlin?
I don't know.
I'll give you some of your own medicine... "Ask him yourself." It's not much of a problem for companies like Morris' to discard sales receipts after legal time statutes have passed. If he had no sales records at all from 1967, it doesn't mean he never sold any gorilla costumes to anyone in that year. An invoice for Patterson would be a great thing to have right now. Instead, we get his testimony of talking to Roger, selling him a costume, explaining how to bulk-up the shoulders and simulate big arms, and then seeing it on TV not long afterwards.
Not long afterward? What's your source? The film didn't go on tour until circa 1969, did it? I'm quite certain there were no TV docs with it until 1970 something. I was watching a lot of TV in those days, and I'm certain it didn't even make the evening news in Southern California.
Morris' recollection of selling the suit to Roger came only months after he sold it. It was when he saw on television that a guy named Roger Patterson filmed a Bigfoot. He recognized his suit (with customizations) on TV. He shipped the suit to the post office in Yakima in Patterson's name. If somebody ordered the suit pretending to be RP, then they also had to pretend to be RP when they picked it up at the PO.
And then he kept quiet for over 30 years.
He has nothing to prove this. He's "remembering" after hearing about Long and his book. What did he see on TV and exactly when? That should be easy enough to check out.
He claims he charged about $416 + S&H, BTW. It was not even one of his better suits.
Again it's possible Roger did buy a suit and that Heironimus wore one, but that's not what's on the film <
swaggers>
It seems that Roger gave Bob the impression that he had made the suit entirely by himself. BH couldn't really know that that was true, and he probably didn't really care. He may have later been told or heard that it was made by Chambers and thought this was true. In all honesty, Heironimus should not be expected to give a definitive declaration of who actually made the suit. He only really knows what Roger told him. Morris' testimony that it started out as his gorilla suit (with mods) makes sense for the situation.
Such as a football helmet under the head and Bob's glued-in glass eye?
It seems more likely he was just making it up as he went along.
Yeah right, because NASI demonstrated that the subject in the film weighs 1,957 pounds.
Glickman used a height of 7'3" and a fomula. Evidently the formula doesn't work, but since no one thought to weigh Patty, we don't really know that for sure.
Aren't you tired of posting that yet?
Yep, I've seen them. With certain modifications you can make yourself a Bigfoot.
Still waiting for Dfoot....................
You are so confident that Bigfoot exists, that you will say stuff like that. Swagger Lu!
My confidence has nothing to do with the PGF.
You're stating suppositions as though they were facts. You seem a little hysterical, actually.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were seeing the holes in your own arguments.
