Jump to content


Photo

Bob Heironimus & Patty's Breasts


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#41 Thepattywagon

Thepattywagon

    Yowie

  • Banned
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 08:37 AM

For the equivalent of $6,500 in today's dollars, I doubt many cowboys would flinch at the notion. If Bob Heironimus could pop his glass eye out into a glass of beer at the local pub, I doubt he would have had much of a problem with the suit.
This is not to say I believe Bob H was in the suit, because I most certainly do not.
  • 0

#42 Kerchak

Kerchak

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 12:29 AM

Which particular 'suit' were these boobs attached to anyway? The smelly dead red horse suit with the t-shirt like torso arrangement or the fake fur Morris suit with the zipper up and down the back.

Inquiring minds would like to know. :lol:
  • 0
""My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film (Patterson Gimlin Film) would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."" - Dr Donald W. Grieve, London 1972.

#43 Thepattywagon

Thepattywagon

    Yowie

  • Banned
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 04:37 AM

Which particular 'suit' were these boobs attached to anyway? The smelly dead red horse suit with the t-shirt like torso arrangement or the fake fur Morris suit with the zipper up and down the back.

Inquiring minds would like to know. :lol:

Kerchak, We mustn't allow ourselves to get bogged down in the minutiae of such trivial contradictions. What is paramount is getting ol Bob to reveal Patty's cup size. :lol:
  • 0

#44 tallmonkey

tallmonkey

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 94 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 07:20 PM

If Patty is a suit Like Bob H. says, wouldn't the breasts have to be weighted down in some way in order for them to move independently of the upper torso like that? I don't mean water balloons, but maybe sand balloons or even a couple of softball-size rocks sewn into pockets of two specially tailored cups of fur? And if the breasts were weighted, wouldn't that most likely make them the heaviest part of the costume? (They'd have to be weighted pretty heavily in order to look real, IMO). Assuming that is the case, shouldn't that be among the top talking points of Heironimus's description of this so-called suit?
  • 1

#45 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,033 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 09:41 PM

And that female and encounter nearly verbatim to what Roger described in an interview with the Times-Standard the night of the alleged filming day that was somehow able to be given front page coverage with in hours from a paper whose managing editor's wife admitted after his death was collaborating with Bigfoot hoaxers using that paper.

It's funny how you conveniently keep omitting the part of the story that Beal's wife was specifically referring to Ray Wallace, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Roger Patterson. I like how you tack it on to stories of Roger to make it sound like he was involved.

Hornswoggling.
  • 2

#46 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 10:02 PM

Patterson before they allegedly had any idea if he had anything on film gets his story on the front page of a newspaper with a late night interview that only the managing editor could make that call. That managing editor just happened to be collaborating with the local Bigfoot hoaxer by the admission of his own wife and Patterson associated with that hoaxer. Patterson was himself already an admitted Bigfoot hoaxer according to Yakima camera store owner Harvey Anderson.

Front page with the hoaxer paper and the tracks that were the alleged impetus for being there made by the hoaxer collaborating with that editor. Patterson being included in the arrangement first made between Beal and Wallace is in no way an out there idea since we know Wallace was hoaxing, Patterson is said to have been doing so since at least 1961, and these guys knew each other personally and were concentrating activity in the same area for years.

Did all the gong show hoaxing attract some real Bigfoots? Does Bigfoot get mad when it sees artless square toes and double ball hourglass nonsense?
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#47 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,033 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 10:39 PM

Patterson before they allegedly had any idea if he had anything on film gets his story on the front page of a newspaper with a late night interview that only the managing editor could make that call. That managing editor just happened to be collaborating with the local Bigfoot hoaxer by the admission of his own wife and Patterson associated with that hoaxer. Patterson was himself already an admitted Bigfoot hoaxer according to Yakima camera store owner Harvey Anderson.

Front page with the hoaxer paper and the tracks that were the alleged impetus for being there made by the hoaxer collaborating with that editor. Patterson being included in the arrangement first made between Beal and Wallace is in no way an out there idea since we know Wallace was hoaxing, Patterson is said to have been doing so since at least 1961, and these guys knew each other personally and were concentrating activity in the same area for years.

Did all the gong show hoaxing attract some real Bigfoots? Does Bigfoot get mad when it sees artless square toes and double ball hourglass nonsense?

There's not a single shred of evidence linking the two as collaborative hoaxers. Yet there is a lot of evidence tying Wallace to hoaxing in the Bluff Creek area.


Wallace's own admission: "I felt sorry for Roger Patterson. He told me that he had cancer of the lymph glands and he was desperately broke and he wanted to try get something where he could have a little income. Well, he went down there just exactly where I told him. I told him, 'You go down there and hang around on that bank. Stay up there and watch that spot.' I told him where the trail was that went down to where that big rock was. I told him where he could get those pictures down there. Bluff Creek."

So here we have a known hoaxer telling a rabid believer exactly where to go to see a Bigfoot, and to keep watching that spot.

Edited by roguefooter, 15 December 2011 - 10:48 PM.

  • 0

#48 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,225 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:07 PM

(They'd have to be weighted pretty heavily in order to look real, IMO). Assuming that is the case, shouldn't that be among the top talking points of Heironimus's description of this so-called suit?

Exactly! And yet, not a single word about that from BH or from the others that he showed the suit to at the bar. It is very difficult (impossible, for me) to believe that that would not be a major topic of discussion...
  • 0

From the Centre for Fortean Zoology, 'Statement of Core Belief':
9. That the CFZ should be an international brother/sisterhood of like minded people who work together, mindless of differences of creed and culture, to push back the boundaries of human knowledge, for no other reason than that it is a good thing to do...

 

 


#49 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:15 PM

There's not a single shred of evidence linking the two as collaborative hoaxers. Yet there is a lot of evidence tying Wallace to hoaxing in the Bluff Creek area.


The two have been associated since before Roger's book. One is a known hoaxer, the other allegedly so since 1961. The very first paper Patterson gets on the phone with is one that is collaborating with Roger's hoaxer friend. Roger gets on the front page within hours and they don't even know if they have anything according to there story.


Wallace's own admission: "I felt sorry for Roger Patterson. He told me that he had cancer of the lymph glands and he was desperately broke and he wanted to try get something where he could have a little income. Well, he went down there just exactly where I told him. I told him, 'You go down there and hang around on that bank. Stay up there and watch that spot.' I told him where the trail was that went down to where that big rock was. I told him where he could get those pictures down there. Bluff Creek."

So here we have a known hoaxer telling a rabid believer exactly where to go to see a Bigfoot, and to keep watching that spot.


The PGF a hoax with Wallace duping Patterson and Gimlin. This is an old favourite. How does Wallace ensure that Gimlin doesn't flip seeing his first Bigfoot and ventilate it?
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#50 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,033 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 11:47 PM

The two have been associated since before Roger's book. One is a known hoaxer, the other allegedly so since 1961. The very first paper Patterson gets on the phone with is one that is collaborating with Roger's hoaxer friend. Roger gets on the front page within hours and they don't even know if they have anything according to there story.

"Allegedly" does not make it so. Roger called the Times-Standard the only newspaper for that area, and gets on the front page because by that time Bigfoot is a hot topic already.



The PGF a hoax with Wallace duping Patterson and Gimlin. This is an old favourite. How does Wallace ensure that Gimlin doesn't flip seeing his first Bigfoot and ventilate it?


Roger was a 'no kill' advocate and made it well known. Roger spoke to Wallace several times previously and Ray would have been well familiar with his stance. Since Ray was the one who directed Roger to Bluff Creek he probably would have discussed this issue with him before he left. Patterson and Gimlin both agree to not shoot any sasquatch if encountered.

Edited by roguefooter, 16 December 2011 - 12:12 AM.

  • 0

#51 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 12:12 AM

Roger was a 'no kill' advocate and made it well known. Patterson and Gimlin both agreed to not shoot any sasquatch if encountered. Roger spoke to Wallace several times and Ray would have been well familiar with his stance. Since Ray was the one who directed Roger to Bluff Creek he probably would have discussed this issue.


You're not applying allgedly to Ray. He claimed to have told Patterson where to go.

You're going to gamble your life on what you think someone may or may not do with the firearm you are planning on getting in front of them with? Choose life, man. Just choose life.
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#52 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,033 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 03:08 AM

You're not applying allgedly to Ray. He claimed to have told Patterson where to go.

You're going to gamble your life on what you think someone may or may not do with the firearm you are planning on getting in front of them with? Choose life, man. Just choose life.

Ray's word is just as good as Bob Heironimus, probably moreso since he's been attached to Bluff Creek hoaxing for years. If Ray has been responsible for all the hoaxing in Bluff Creek since the 50's then there's no reason to suddenly count him out for the PGF event. The odds put him as a front-runner if there was any hoax that day. Even you said the tracks look like his.

As far as gambling goes- hoaxers are all about taking chances. They take a chance of getting shot every time they go in the woods and they still do it. They're obviously not the smartest bunch of people.
  • 1

#53 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 02:01 PM

Ray Wallace the Bigfoot hoaxer's word is good, but Harvey Anderson the film developer's word, no, that's no good.

Welcome to Bigfootery.
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#54 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,033 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 05:59 PM

Ray Wallace the Bigfoot hoaxer's word is good, but Harvey Anderson the film developer's word, no, that's no good.

Welcome to Bigfootery.

Wallace is a verified hoaxer, Harvey Anderson is nothing but hearsay. You can't see the difference here?

Harvey Anderson tried to take credit for developing the PGF film- do you believe him? He tried to claim Patterson told him about his illness before his family even knew about it- do you believe him? Harvey Anderson said the PGF film was made in the early 60's- do you believe him?

The guy is all talk and no substance. If you think that's only in Bigfootery then you need to take your blinders off. You're hanging on to a pipe dream with this guy.

Face it Kit, if this was a hoax then you're wasting your time looking at the wrong people. Instead of going with the simplest and most obvious answer you decide to go with the novel length story full of holes like Swiss cheese. Having to take everybody out of character as if they all have a Jekyll and Hyde complex hiding some elusive secret, just to make the story work.

Occam's Razor need not apply.

Edited by roguefooter, 16 December 2011 - 06:19 PM.

  • 2

#55 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:49 PM

Wallace is a verified hoaxer,


Tell it to LAL, Mulder, Meldrum, Paulides, etc. Off the teflon it goes. La la la, Rogue. We do not hear this talking about verified hoaxer Ray Wallace you are doing in our ears. He never has been proven to hoax anything in the field. La la la... is how that will go. You'll get better from Paulides. Mr. "Bigfoot is us" DNA guy that so many people are back at the edge of the seat again for will tell you Wallace is one of the original Bigfoot legends. He knew Bigfoot better than anyone. It's true!

Harvey Anderson is nothing but hearsay. You can't see the difference here?


No. No, I really don't. Well, I know one guy is a hoaxer, so I'm going to take that into account when he's talking about the UFO's and Tseeatco's talking, etc, but you can't dismiss Anderson's testimony about Roger's hoaxing and give a big fat thumbs up for Wallace saying he told Patterson just where exactly to go and when to be there.

Have you really thought this through, Rogue? You know, I don't think you have. You see, you're not taking into account what the source of the film alleges actually happened when you are suggesting Wallace duping Patterson and Gimlin. Let's just nonchalantly wave away the fact that he's going to get in front of guys with rifle and even if he thinks he knows what one guys will do, he can't be sure about the other. OK, you run with "Well, he's a hoaxer so he's stupid." Apparently, he's smart enough to fool anthropologist Don Abbot, Green, Dahinden, Meldrum, etc, but he's still dumb enough to pretend to be Bigfoot in front of armed men.

But here's where your Wallace duping P&G really jumps the shark - you are seriously taking as fact that Wallace said be at this exact spot and this exact place and you'll see one. That means that you're seriously suggesting that either when they were in Washington before they left, or NorCal when they got there, that Wallace told Patterson to be at the sandbar bend in Bluff Creek by the logging road at least three weeks later on October 20th, don't forget that now, the 20th; it's a Friday, you'll see Bigfoot. Not tomorrow, not next weekend, but on the 20th. Wallace said he told Roger the exact time to be there, Rogue, so did he say around 1:30ish, Friday, Oct. 20th? No? Did he he be much more vague about the time and make a pass by the creek in a suit every Fri-Sun afternoon for three weeks?

Yes, Rogue, Wallace was a tricksy old trickster. He was totally a hoaxer. He was collaborating with the Times-Standard to put Bigfoot and their area on the map. He'd been doing it for years. Roger had also been coming there for years. Patterson having a connection with Wallace in hoaxing is not at all unrealistic especially when Laurence "Scoop" Beal's nephew says that is exactly what happened. It's not something someone should just say pish to and dismiss as hearsay because it's not the flavour of hearsay that they like.

Why is is logical to take seriously Wallace doing the hoaxing to Patterson, but not that he was doing some hoaxing with Patterson?

Harvey Anderson tried to take credit for developing the PGF film- do you believe him? He tried to claim Patterson told him about his illness before his family even knew about it- do you believe him? Harvey Anderson said the PGF film was made in the early 60's- do you believe him?


Why are you taking away from him that when he was told the specifics of Patterson's film; being in '67 not '61, being a Cine Kodak 100, not a Revere 16mm camera; being Kodachrome II, not Kodachrome; being a 100 foot roll, not 50; that he said no, it was 1961 and that must have been another film then the PGF? He was extremely specific about everything Roger had said and done. His brother Duane had a completely different set of his own experiences with Patterson. Patterson told Anderson that a Bigfoot had come up to his VW bug at dusk on a Yakima logging road and lifted it. Ring a bell?...

Posted Image

You know who drew that, right?

Regarding Roger's illness, why are you taking Glenn Patterson remembering Patterson being diagnosed to live two years and living eight before he died, putting the diagnosis to 1964 when Glenn also said that he rarely if ever saw Patterson because he was driving truck from Montana to El Paso during all the time Patterson was interested in Bigfoot? Green said when Patterson visited him in 1965 he was already looking like the 90 pound weakling from the Charles Atlas ads. He went from his diagnosis to an advanced stage of Hodgkin's lymphoma in about a year? More importantly, Patterson's neighbour when he lived on Pioneer St. in Yakima between 1958 and 1963, George Dunn, said Patterson had to move to the Ahtanum Valley because his illness had made it too hard for him to pay his house payments. That would mean two years before Roger is at an advanced stage with his cancer, he was then very sick as well, one year before he is supposed to be diagnosed.

Most importantly, Glenn can simply have been off with he recollection of Patterson being diagnosed. He didn't see him when he was diagnosed, he saw him when the disease was at an advanced stage. That's what he remembered most. Also, Anderson can have been wrong about 1961. He felt pretty certain because he thought it was before a fire they had in the fall of 1961. You and I both know it could have been after and he didn't remember correctly when he recalled the events in 2001.

What you are doing is taking hearsay from a Bigfoot hoaxer and stating it as fact because it works better than allowing for the same from a film developer and his brother who had no interest in bigfoot and were business owners in Yakima. You need to make them into nefarious colluders while taking a Bigfoot hoaxer at his word.
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#56 James

James

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 261 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 12:07 AM

Sorry Kit, the boobs look pretty real to me. I'm no Larry Flynt but they look real enough. :)
  • 0

#57 StankApe

StankApe

    Oh Mah

  • Banned
  • 609 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 12:50 AM

Since I have changed sides on the PGF I have always thought that the boobs were put there to hide the obvious gorilla suit chest. It wouldn't take much effort to make fake boobs covered in fur look half decent at 80+ feet anyway. It's not like he had to make it passable at 10 feet or less .... Let's not start frying chicken we ain't sold now!
  • 1
Squatchin'! A Scientific Journal for the Study of Mightius Squatchus !( coming Fall 2012)
"They paid me to kill people in the army, whats the big deal bout shootin a squatch?"

#58 Primate

Primate

    Oh Mah

  • Inactive
  • 566 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 01:39 AM

I think the slight jiggle they make as she steps forward and plants for the look back would be hard to fake ..
  • 0

#59 StankApe

StankApe

    Oh Mah

  • Banned
  • 609 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:54 AM

Why? The only way they wouldn't jiggle would be if they were made of a solid material and glued in place (like styrofoam or plastic) if they were made of any sort of cloth and then filled with sand,water or any other somewhat fluid substance, they are gonna move around a fair bit. I actually think they are too pert and move too little to be real. If you notice most apes and native female breasts tend to flatten out and move around quite a bit when walking.....
  • 0
Squatchin'! A Scientific Journal for the Study of Mightius Squatchus !( coming Fall 2012)
"They paid me to kill people in the army, whats the big deal bout shootin a squatch?"

#60 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Skunk Ape

  • Members
  • 3,033 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 02:21 PM

Have you really thought this through, Rogue? You know, I don't think you have. You see, you're not taking into account what the source of the film alleges actually happened when you are suggesting Wallace duping Patterson and Gimlin. Let's just nonchalantly wave away the fact that he's going to get in front of guys with rifle and even if he thinks he knows what one guys will do, he can't be sure about the other. OK, you run with "Well, he's a hoaxer so he's stupid." Apparently, he's smart enough to fool anthropologist Don Abbot, Green, Dahinden, Meldrum, etc, but he's still dumb enough to pretend to be Bigfoot in front of armed men.

Hoaxers are thrillseekers and don't take the precautions as serious as you do, Kit.

- They go out in the woods in a fur suit knowing they could get pegged off by a hunter. Fact.

- They put on a fur suit and run out in front of moving cars without much thought of becoming roadkill. Fact.

- They go on to people's property(like Jerry Merritt's) wearing a fur suit without much thought about attack dogs or owners carrying a 44 magnum. Fact.

Where's all that precaution that your claiming Kit? You're just not thinking like a hoaxer are you? I don't need assumptions, there are already enough incidents to claim these as facts.

But here's where your Wallace duping P&G really jumps the shark - you are seriously taking as fact that Wallace said be at this exact spot and this exact place and you'll see one. That means that you're seriously suggesting that either when they were in Washington before they left, or NorCal when they got there, that Wallace told Patterson to be at the sandbar bend in Bluff Creek by the logging road at least three weeks later on October 20th, don't forget that now, the 20th; it's a Friday, you'll see Bigfoot. Not tomorrow, not next weekend, but on the 20th. Wallace said he told Roger the exact time to be there, Rogue, so did he say around 1:30ish, Friday, Oct. 20th? No? Did he he be much more vague about the time and make a pass by the creek in a suit every Fri-Sun afternoon for three weeks?

Yes, Rogue, Wallace was a tricksy old trickster. He was totally a hoaxer. He was collaborating with the Times-Standard to put Bigfoot and their area on the map. He'd been doing it for years. Roger had also been coming there for years. Patterson having a connection with Wallace in hoaxing is not at all unrealistic especially when Laurence "Scoop" Beal's nephew says that is exactly what happened. It's not something someone should just say pish to and dismiss as hearsay because it's not the flavour of hearsay that they like.

IF there was a hoax, then this theory is the simplest and most obvious theory, Kit. It doesn't need long drawn out explanations for everything, it doesn't need special pleading, it doesn't need to change everybody's character just to make the story work, it requires no rediculous stories of conspiracy. It's Occam's Razor all wrapped up in a nice little package for you.

- Wallace made a deal with Beal to bring attention to the area.

- Wallace hoaxed his worksite and fooled Jerry Crew.

- Wallace hoaxed the Titmus tracks in '58.

- Wallace hoaxed the Hodgson tracks in '63.

- The tracks Patterson found in Bluff Creek in 63 look similar to the 67 tracks (possibly Wallace)

- Wallace made the tracks on Blue Creek Mountain in '67.

- Wallace was the one who told Patterson to come to Bluff Creek in '67 and exactly where to look.

- Wallace was a successful contractor and had good reason to travel back and forth to the area. He also had more than enough money to fool Patterson.

- Meldrum claimed the Bluff Creek tracks were made by the same creature as Blue Creek mountain(aka Wallace).

- Kitikaze(you) claimed the Bluff Creek tracks originated from Wallace tracks.

Wallace's fingerprints are all over Bluff Creek, but let's totally ignore that and create a novel-sized story instead, change everyone's character, and then fill in the mountain of swiss cheese holes with filler and explanations. Hey it makes for a fun book and documentary though doesn't it?

- In this story Patterson is a rabid believer and nothing more.

- In this story Gimlin is Patterson's partner and friend, nothing more.

- In this story DeAtley is nothing but a financial source, nothing more.

- In this story Wallace is and always has been the obvious Bluff Creek hoaxer. He also did Patterson a huge financial favor and actually comes out looking like a pretty good guy for it.


This story doesn't even need Wallace's testimony or any other hearsay- the mountain of real evidence in support of this story speaks for itself.

Just about all of these points are factual, Kit. How many actual facts do you have in your story? Your mountain of swiss cheese is primarily based on hearsay, not facts. That's why you keep getting nowhere with it.

Occam's Razor be damned.

Edited by roguefooter, 17 December 2011 - 02:51 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users