Leaderboard

Yea I am sure he was at the time 6' tall. No one looking for accuracy uses a tape measure to measure height. You mark the height and THEN measure the height if you are limited only to a tape measure. When people use the standing tape measure method it is full of errors and often measures them taller than they are esp. due to a wraparound effect. Further Long has a bias where he needs Bob to be as tall as possible. Not saying he did this and if Bob H is 6' 2'' that's fine by me. I won't take longs word for it but would gladly take Bob H doctor visit records as accurate. I personally could care less how tall Bob H is now so long as he is measured accurately. Most people know how tall they were at their youngest and fittest. When long quotes Bob H as saying he was 6" tall that is the most likely accurate take on his height in 1967. I am sure Bob H reported these many times on any driver's license. If he was a veteran, they measured him in the military. Doctors' visits at the time would measure and weight him. Bob Heironimus would know his height and have many opportunities to drill it into his head. Patty could be 6'1'' tall and Bob H and millions of others could fit in a Patty suit if it was a suit. That's fine. The issue is if Bob H could be a man in a suit. If I asked Roddy McDowell about his makeup process for Planet of the Apes, Roddy could likely tell me accurately in great detail all about the process. He could describe how it was applied, who applied it, how long did things take to dry, did it itch, and so on. He could tell you who the nice person who brought him coffee and doughnuts by name. Bob Heironimus cannot do that. Bob H -just on a suit alone- has constant changing the descriptions. They can't all be right and if they are constantly changing his testimony cannot be trust if the change is dramatically different from previous claims. Anyone who was there that day and camped that night before knows the soil is not "White as snow " For all these and more, reasons bob H height is the least of his concerns.

I would agree that in the interest of the government, its better off to just deny deny and deny what it can't explain or control. But as far as to "why" it leaves us to speculate. I would imagine if there was a disclosure about Sasquatch and that if the government basically said sasquatch is an alpha apex predator and that they possibly hunt and abduct humans, it would change A LOT about how humans approach nature.

I just want to emphasize this before anyone gets in trouble. No religious topics may not be discussed in the open forum. However, you may discuss them in the Tar Pit if you like. Thank you RedHawk, for your discussion of your incidents. I would have been out of the basement a lot sooner than you!

This is kind of where I'm at on it, only to say that I don't think it is suppression so much as in-action, which is the easiest thing to do. If I were a Government, or University Scientist that believed in Bigfoot, I don't think I would say too much either, until I had indisputable truth. (They have some great benefits there that most people don't want to lose. lol) As far as the OP; imo, that won't happen in a million years so, I can't say much about that.

I think they're suppressing discovery because these creatures will be determined to be a human species, and that will cause a whole new level of political, legal, and real estate problems. Simultaneously, discovery will be too disruptive to the sasquatch species. Currently, they're almost universally left alone by humanity. That will not be the case after discovery. Keeping them mythical is better for everybody, especially the sasquatches.

Part of being fooled is wanting to believe the thing one is being fooled by. If a person has 100% belief there are no such thing as any life on other planets, they probably have a 0% chance of being fooled by a hoaxed lying saucer photo or story. If a person is 100% convinced Martians are visiting earth, they are more likely to believe stories about UFO's and the like and thus increase their chance to be fooled by any hoax of such a topic. This is why people who are die hard bigfoot skeptics will ignore all the holes in Bob Hieronimus story and be convinced he was the man a Patty suit. When it comes to this new film (and I have not watched it) we have two main forces at work: 1) those who produce it as a work product will craft the story and film in any way which helps sell a smoking gun. 2) those who wish to believe it will dismiss things which hurt the narrative and elevate anything which they can stretch to fit the narrative. Being fooled by something is easier if the person is already convinced before the fooling begins.

Kinda researching this new documentary and it seems like proponents of this documentary are heavily relying on anecdotal evidence.. which is ironic since our side gets ridiculed all the time for relying on anecdotal evidence.