Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Bob H & The Suit

Recommended Posts

Guest

Let's establish Bob H's claims about the suit:

1) He needed help getting in and out of the suit.

2) It was a 7 piece suit, 2 feet, pants, torso with arms attached, 2 hands & head.

3) There were shoulder pads attached to the suit.

4) No hand extensions.

5) No padding, except for the butt.

6) Glass eye in the right eye hole of the mask.

7) The head piece stunk.

8) The mask was horse hide.

9) The hands were gloves.

10) The feet were from a costume.

11) He did not wear his boots.

12) A football helmet was in the head piece.

13) The mask was an inch from his face.

14) There were breasts on the suit (how heavy were they and were they attached to fabric?).

15) Bob's wallet bulges out in at least 1 frame.

We should put together a list of follow up questions for Bob since we're lucky enough to have a liaison to him (thanx Kit). We especially need to focus more on his recollections of the suit. Was it falling apart? Form-fitting? The feet? Etc.

Any more "facts" for the list?

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

The leg and foot portions of the suit were suppose to be like hip waders. In the interview I listened to from Biscardis' site, Morris claimed the toes of the feet were hollow latex rubber. Bob H. did not correct him on that. Bob H. said he had on pants under the suit and his wallet was in his front pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good ones SY.

1) He needed help getting in and out of the suit.

2) It was a 7 piece suit, 2 feet, pants, torso with arms attached, 2 hands & head.

3) There were shoulder pads attached to the suit.

4) No hand extensions.

5) No padding, except for the butt.

6) Glass eye in the right eye hole of the mask.

7) The head piece stunk.

8) The mask was horse hide.

9) The hands were gloves.

10) The feet were from a costume.

11) He did not wear his boots.

12) A football helmet was in the head piece.

13) The mask was an inch from his face.

14) There were breasts on the suit (how heavy were they and were they attached to fabric?).

15) Bob's wallet bulges out in at least 1 frame.

16) The leg and foot portions of the suit were suppose to be like hip waders.

17) The toes of the feet were hollow latex rubber.

Bob H advocates feel free to dispute the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

I can only add that after seeing the list of Bob's claims and protrusions that it makes it utterly absurd to have him at Bluff Creek.

Has anybody any idea how difficult it is seeing with one eye through a single eyelit 1" from your face. Now add to that a heavy costume, forced funny walk, unfamiliar terrain, being filmed and doing this all flawlessly in one take. I hope some suitniks acquire the $$$ and moxie to put it to the test. I hope I'm there to see it live. I fully expect to laugh a good laugh. And yes dear readers I'm giving it a good laugh right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Why was Bob H's wallet bulging, if he was out the $1000 he was owed, as retold with nauseating regularity, as has been recounted by DeAtley, at the Waylon Jennings concert?

Seems to me ol' Bob's wallet should have been pretty thin, kinda like the evidence that actually places him at the scene, let alone in the suit.

Sorry, it has been almost 24 hours since a mention of DeAtley and the Waylon Jennings concert - I think the universe ends or something if it goes much longer. :P

Edited by infoman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

well apart from,a skinned out red horse,using the the full hide, or just bits not yet fully explained,a glass eye glued in,wearing waders, arm extensions,shoulder pads,house slippers,a old fur coat,and a football helmet.extra fabric from Morris, a big rear arse and a pair of solid boobs! and his size at the time that needed the extra padding bulking out this suit. we have!

a guy stuffed into the said a "modified Morris suit" with added extras thats still got us debating who did this amazing hoax!

oh! and what happened to all the extras after?Big Hush Hush on that yep Bob is keen to help keep it sceret!but it's stated the suit was seen back at the tavern shown by him on his return! and Bobs mother saw it in the morning "um"!ok a suit! or was that the suit old Bob used before on his pranks? "Ah" KIT please ask Bob, did he bring home the full suit with all the added parts back? or earning his said $1000 owed? did he dispose of such on route back home? did he take the suit he carried around in his car on the trip? then being this journalistic crusader for truth, ask those that witnessed the suit on Bobs return was it just a like the suit Bob had for ages? or was it far more,better made with zips, helmet, shoulder pads,and waders etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Let's establish Bob H's claims about the suit:

1) He needed help getting in and out of the suit.

2) It was a 7 piece suit, 2 feet, pants, torso with arms attached, 2 hands & head.

3) There were shoulder pads attached to the suit.

4) No hand extensions.

5) No padding, except for the butt.

6) Glass eye in the right eye hole of the mask.

7) The head piece stunk.

8) The mask was horse hide.

9) The hands were gloves.

10) The feet were from a costume.

11) He did not wear his boots.

12) A football helmet was in the head piece.

13) The mask was an inch from his face.

14) There were breasts on the suit (how heavy were they and were they attached to fabric?).

15) Bob's wallet bulges out in at least 1 frame.

We should put together a list of follow up questions for Bob since we're lucky enough to have a liaison to him (thanx Kit). We especially need to focus more on his recollections of the suit. Was it falling apart? Form-fitting? The feet? Etc.

Any more "facts" for the list?

G, 5 is incorrect and 13 needs to . Bob also described shoulder pads and padding in the head. To be specific, BH thought the head piece was constructed from an oldtime football helmet. He thought the face stunk like horsehide. He thought there was about a 2 inch space between the top of where his head was and the top of the head piece. he said it was difficult to see out of the suit. He said the suit was easy to get on and took between three to five minutes. He said he was fine without the head on but it was warm and when the head was on he quickly became claustrophobic.

G, please tomorrow or the next day if you have time drive over to the Saanich Centennial library branch next to Pearkes Arena by Tllicum Mall and Silver City and pick up the copy of MoB waiting for you. When you walk in the library entrance you will quickly see the Internet station section on your left. The book is on the first bookshelf on the right of the Internet area on the top shelf...

001.944 LON

When you get home with it, crack it open to page 345-346 to begin reading Heironimus' first description of the suit to Long. His descriptions to me went involved a lot more questioning on my part. Those were recorded on the old BFF and the skeptics forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

well apart from,a skinned out red horse,using the the full hide, or just bits not yet fully explained,a glass eye glued in,wearing waders, arm extensions,shoulder pads,house slippers,a old fur coat,and a football helmet.extra fabric from Morris, a big rear arse and a pair of solid boobs! and his size at the time that needed the extra padding bulking out this suit. we have!

a guy stuffed into the said a "modified Morris suit" with added extras thats still got us debating who did this amazing hoax!

oh! and what happened to all the extras after?Big Hush Hush on that yep Bob is keen to help keep it sceret!but it's stated the suit was seen back at the tavern shown by him on his return! and Bobs mother saw it in the morning "um"!ok a suit! or was that the suit old Bob used before on his pranks? "Ah" KIT please ask Bob, did he bring home the full suit with all the added parts back? or earning his said $1000 owed? did he dispose of such on route back home? did he take the suit he carried around in his car on the trip? then being this journalistic crusader for truth, ask those that witnessed the suit on Bobs return was it just a like the suit Bob had for ages? or was it far more,better made with zips, helmet, shoulder pads,and waders etc?

This will get you started...

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Bigfoot-Inside-Story/dp/1591021391

I can't link to it, but then you will want to google my interviews with Bob Heironimus, Howard Heironimus, Glenda Heironimus, Gary Record, and Bernard Hammermeister. It's all out there waiting for you, you just have to make the effort to get the knowledge you are asking for. Please don't ask me to answer all your questions personally for you. Time is scant and I'm not into helping believers who scorn me who won't help themselves...

iStock_000005831123-Jump-through-hoops.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

The problem is this Kit:

All of your information comes from a single source (other than your interviews).

And in some cases, your interviews contradict your single published source of information.

There are numerous other published sources of information available, but you don't seem interested in using any of them. Maybe because they don't support your theories.

If your project was a term paper and I was your instructor, I would have a very hard time giving you a generous "C" and would be more inclined to give you a "D". Your bibliography would be one line. Your footnotes would be made up of nothing but quotes from your own interviews, of which none of us have heard any actual audio - only quotes from what you say are transcriptions.

If your project was a thesis, it would utterly fail. As in, "F".

Your insistence on using Long's book as your only published source is damaging to your arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
Sorry, it has been almost 24 hours since a mention of DeAtley and the Waylon Jennings concert - I think the universe ends or something if it goes much longer. :P

235179966_b21ce1244b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The problem is this Kit:

All of your information comes from a single source (other than your interviews).

And in some cases, your interviews contradict your single published source of information.

There are numerous other published sources of information available, but you don't seem interested in using any of them. Maybe because they don't support your theories.

If your project was a term paper and I was your instructor, I would have a very hard time giving you a generous "C" and would be more inclined to give you a "D". Your bibliography would be one line. Your footnotes would be made up of nothing but quotes from your own interviews, of which none of us have heard any actual audio - only quotes from what you say are transcriptions.

If your project was a thesis, it would utterly fail. As in, "F".

Your insistence on using Long's book as your only published source is damaging to your arguments.

Only published source? :huh:

Spaz, you can offer whatever reason you like for not ever having read Long's book. I put forth six sources, five of which were my own personal sources. Two of those key people were never even interviewed by Long. You are not an instructor nor am I your student so your suggested grades I take as suggestions. Feel free to name a single other source that has as many interviews with people involved in all aspects of the film and Roger Patterson.

The questions for which justwonder is seeking answers are in the sources I gave. My project, which is non sequitur to what jw was asking, features more than anything people, not books. Books containing important references include those by not only Long, but Meldrum, Krantz, Byrne, McLeod, Buhs, Napier, Patterson, Dahinden, Green and many others.

There's lots of published sources to look at, and certainly not only skeptical ones. For example, let's look at Chris Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal and select page 38...

Horse Sense

I have confirmed with Bob Gimlin that Patterson definitely rode a small quarter horse (which he owned), not his Welsh pony "Peanuts." Also, that Patterson had arranged to borrow a horse by the name of "Chico" from Bob Heironimus for Gimlin to use.

That Patterson and Gimlin had borrowed a horse from a man with whom they were friends, and which would later (1999) claim to have been the "creature" in the film seems odd on the surface. However, Gimlin did not have a horse that was suitable (old enough) for the expedition, so Patterson arranged to borrow Chico as stated. It is all that simple. The three men were friends and neighbours and borrowed horses from each other. Although Gimlin can't specifically recall, it is likely he had a borrowed horse for the previous Mt. St. Helens expedition.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=0_vFkL6p5mEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=christopher+murphy+bigfoot+film+journal&source=bl&ots=7C-EUPPCCm&sig=4SepXJajIExjLhW747fk06QfIoM&hl=en&ei=6QIsTcncEIjGsAPml9zsBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Gimlin has just blown away his interview with John Green where he said he provided his own horse and where he said later that the reason he had Chico was because he was breaking the horse in for Heironimus. He is also blowing away the interview with MNBRT where he was saying he went with Roger to Mt. St. Helen's because he had young horses he need to ride in the mountains.

Gimlin's stories are all over the place. He's got Green going one way and Murphy completely another with a Chico runaround.

I do not insist on using only Greg Long as my only written source. That should have been well known to you already.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Hmmm maybe Roger did pay Bob his $1000 and that's why Bob kept his mouth shut all these years? Perhaps Bob just decided that the grass could be even greener a second time around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

The problem is this Kit:

All of your information comes from a single source (other than your interviews).

And in some cases, your interviews contradict your single published source of information.

There are numerous other published sources of information available, but you don't seem interested in using any of them. Maybe because they don't support your theories.

If your project was a term paper and I was your instructor, I would have a very hard time giving you a generous "C" and would be more inclined to give you a "D". Your bibliography would be one line. Your footnotes would be made up of nothing but quotes from your own interviews, of which none of us have heard any actual audio - only quotes from what you say are transcriptions.

If your project was a thesis, it would utterly fail. As in, "F".

Your insistence on using Long's book as your only published source is damaging to your arguments.

Well, Spaz, I didn't realize you were in the business of grading theses. Is that really to the point on this post? or is it attacking the poster?

and show me where kitakaze "insists"....? plz?

Giganto's OP was on Bob H.'s claims, right? and Long and kitakaze's interviews are the largest sources of material amirite? And most importantly, don't you think that if the members actually read the most important source on Bob's claims, that kit could stop having to post the basics over and over and over again? Not to mention the fact that kit regularly cites and quotes and links to other sources, from Green to Dahinden to Patterson to Gimlin to Hodgson. Do you think kit's post was erroneous? Or are you attacking the poster, not the post? Just askin.....

What sources do you want? Bring in your sources, add to the knowledge base. No one is stopping you. Be constructive.

And perhaps you have a good idea here, Spaz, with the grading thing :D Why don't you start grading members objectively (maybe you could start with you) on the breadth and depth of published sources they bring to the table. I think we can rely on you to be objective. Start keeping track of a few members by what sources they cite, how completely they document their sources, and how accurately they quote. Then you can start giving out grades on the quality of their academic work. Somehow I think kitakaze would grade out pretty highly on the academic scales that I am familiar with. Then you could feel better about him. :)

Spaz, I think you are onto something. And perhaps you could give us all a role model, someone who brings more sources, more actual quotes, more authors, more books to the BFF than he does, and you could document this with a comparative review of their posts over the last 6 months. That would instructive to everyone, as to how they could improve their contributions to these discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Only published source? :huh:

Spaz, you can offer whatever reason you like for not ever having read Long's book. I put forth six sources, five of which were my own personal sources. Two of those key people were never even interviewed by Long. You are not an instructor nor am I your student so your suggested grades I take as suggestions. Feel free to name a single other source that has as many interviews with people involved in all aspects of the film and Roger Patterson.

The questions for which justwonder is seeking answers are in the sources I gave. My project, which is non sequitur to what jw was asking, features more than anything people, not books. Books containing important references include those by not only Long, but Meldrum, Krantz, Byrne, McLeod, Buhs, Napier, Patterson, Dahinden, Green and many others.

There's lots of published sources to look at, and certainly not only skeptical ones. For example, let's look at Chris Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal and select page 38...

Horse Sense

I have confirmed with Bob Gimlin that Patterson definitely rode a small quarter horse (which he owned), not his Welsh pony "Peanuts." Also, that Patterson had arranged to borrow a horse by the name of "Chico" from Bob Heironimus for Gimlin to use.

That Patterson and Gimlin had borrowed a horse from a man with whom they were friends, and which would later (1999) claim to have been the "creature" in the film seems odd on the surface. However, Gimlin did not have a horse that was suitable (old enough) for the expedition, so Patterson arranged to borrow Chico as stated. It is all that simple. The three men were friends and neighbours and borrowed horses from each other. Although Gimlin can't specifically recall, it is likely he had a borrowed horse for the previous Mt. St. Helens expedition.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=0_vFkL6p5mEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=christopher+murphy+bigfoot+film+journal&source=bl&ots=7C-EUPPCCm&sig=4SepXJajIExjLhW747fk06QfIoM&hl=en&ei=6QIsTcncEIjGsAPml9zsBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Gimlin has just blown away his interview with John Green where he said he provided his own horse and where he said later that the reason he had Chico was because he was breaking the horse in for Heironimus. He is also blowing away the interview with MNBRT where he was saying he went with Roger to Mt. St. Helen's because he had young horses he need to ride in the mountains.

Gimlin's stories are all over the place. He's got Green going one way and Murphy completely another with a Chico runaround.

I do not insist on using only Greg Long as my only written source. That should have been well known to you already.

I hope you will get a passing grade on this.

And I'm anxious to see the papers submitted by the rest of the class. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Hmmm maybe Roger did pay Bob his $1000 and that's why Bob kept his mouth shut all these years? Perhaps Bob just decided that the grass could be even greener a second time around?

hmmm, Spaz, plz grade this paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...