Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Crowlogic

Roger Filmed Pgf From Horseback

Recommended Posts

Crowlogic

He even had a bent stirrup to show for it. No, wait. Scratch that. Patty encounter v. 1.5. Not the one with the both horses throwing riders. The one where he did the Legolas off the back of the horse and extracted the camera while doing it one handed. He even practiced the move. Just ask Gimlin.

Kinda of walked into that one, didn't you? ;)

Walked into what? Don't you get it Kit that this is whether or not Bob H is telling the truth about Roger filming on horseback. Nothing else is in question here. The stirrup bent or otherwise is not the question. The question is I'll remind you whether or not roger filmed on horseback and moved the camera around for effect. Maybe Gimlin was on a trike or a tractor, maybe Roger was wearing a ballet tutu. It does not matter. Its whether or not Bob H is being truthful. The film itself and the photo recreations that followed indicate contrary to Bob H's account. I'll also remind you Kit that the Cow Camp recreation that you like so much and boast accuracy for scale to Patty was shot at normal height, no elevation, no horseback. Why didn't Bob tell those guys to get the camera raised to the height just like Roger was at. You've got nothing Kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Sure you can Kaze you don't always need proof, just ask the man. Pick up the phone and say "Bob it is more difficult for me to believe that Roger was filming from a horse then on foot, are you sure this is what happened?

Absolutely. I haven't spoken to Bob since last year. I generally call him when I have a few important things to discuss. It is not more difficult for me to think he filmed Patty from horseback, but I'm pretty sure I've already discussed this with him. I'd have to check my notes. Now if someone proves to me Roger could not have been on his horse, I don't care what else there is to discuss, I'll call him right away. I have already done a number of things to satisfy me Bob has not lied to me.

I can suggest the following, however. If anybody really can't believe Roger filmed the PGF on horseback, let's do a call in interview with Heironimus in Gimlin where Heironimus discusses the filming sequence and Gimlin can talk Chico. I do not disagree that there are valid questions for Heironimus. If I call Bob and bring it back to the BFF, there are people that will claim I do not even have contact with him - if I say something they don't want to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
I have been on a horse and observed horses just enough that riding on the surface we can see at Bluff Creek while holding a camera is not a big deal for a rider like Patterson. If you have something that can make that an impossibility for me, please set it out.

my best advice Kit, is stick to your motorcycle!you know about as much on riding a horse, than I do about the fiscal policies of uzbekistan!

I can help you with that...

http://www.ecosecretariat.org/Countries/Uzbekistan/tab_text_report.htm#fiscal

So, why can't you help me? I already know I don't know oodles about horses. I requested you to make Roger shooting from ahorse impossible for me and got no answer.

How's the whole tossing peanuts thing working out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Walked into what? Don't you get it Kit that this is whether or not Bob H is telling the truth about Roger filming on horseback. Nothing else is in question here. The stirrup bent or otherwise is not the question. The question is I'll remind you whether or not roger filmed on horseback and moved the camera around for effect. Maybe Gimlin was on a trike or a tractor, maybe Roger was wearing a ballet tutu. It does not matter. Its whether or not Bob H is being truthful. The film itself and the photo recreations that followed indicate contrary to Bob H's account. I'll also remind you Kit that the Cow Camp recreation that you like so much and boast accuracy for scale to Patty was shot at normal height, no elevation, no horseback. Why didn't Bob tell those guys to get the camera raised to the height just like Roger was at. You've got nothing Kit.

I see. So when discussing how Roger filmed Patty with the camera, we can't discuss totally contradicting versions. McClarin was winging it guessing where Patty walked.

Crow, let me know when some proof Roger could not have filmed Patty from horseback shows up. This thread looks about as promising as the PGF film itself thread. Nothing there, nothing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Absolutely. I haven't spoken to Bob since last year. I generally call him when I have a few important things to discuss. It is not more difficult for me to think he filmed Patty from horseback, but I'm pretty sure I've already discussed this with him. I'd have to check my notes. Now if someone proves to me Roger could not have been on his horse, I don't care what else there is to discuss, I'll call him right away. I have already done a number of things to satisfy me Bob has not lied to me.

I can suggest the following, however. If anybody really can't believe Roger filmed the PGF on horseback, let's do a call in interview with Heironimus in Gimlin where Heironimus discusses the filming sequence and Gimlin can talk Chico. I do not disagree that there are valid questions for Heironimus. If I call Bob and bring it back to the BFF, there are people that will claim I do not even have contact with him - if I say something they don't want to hear.

Once again this is about Bob H's account of Roger's filming him. If you feel the need to parry the blow then start a Chico thread and see what you get. The film appears as if shot by a person moving on foot from start to finish. The only contra to this was offered by Bob H. Bob H is your star witness and Gimlin has nothing to do with Bob H's statement. If Bob H is truthful those who believe it can do the math and show cause. For those who don't believe it there is the film itself that is contra to Bob H's statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

Do you seriously think I'm going to take a "Because I said so"? Hit me with this proof Roger could not have been ahorse when the filming started and I will pick up the phone.

I'll make a deal with Bill, too. If I pick up the phone about a horse to Heironimus, he pick up the phone about a horse to Gimlin. Gimlin can't be telling the truth with his contradicting versions of why he had Chico. Let's lay out the proof and then do a bunch of PGF people horse question calling.

Yes? Bill, you in?

Crow, your next post to me should have graphs and pie charts and such in it. If it has only more "Because I said so", we're going to be here awhile.

Gimlin/Chico is irrelevant and off topic to the thread.

Gimlin/Chico has nothing to do with Roger being on or off a horse at the time of the filming.

Gimlin/Chico is your predictable yet inadequate attempt at deflection from the thread topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

I see. So when discussing how Roger filmed Patty with the camera, we can't discuss totally contradicting versions. McClarin was winging it guessing where Patty walked.

Crow, let me know when some proof Roger could not have filmed Patty from horseback shows up. This thread looks about as promising as the PGF film itself thread. Nothing there, nothing here.

Stay on topic Kit. You're saying this thread is nothing is posturing and nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

well Kit, there's a thing called gait! now gait is from how a horse walks, trots,canters,gallops. now the thing is! each horse don't walk,trot,canter,or gallop the same. some bounce around some less.

some walk real slow and some walk fast.and it goes on much like it does with us really. now forget all that cowboy film stuff you see.it's speed ed up stuff. still with me? now best pace,no hands on reigns a slow walk ok no hands! well how sure footed is your horse. still some sway from the nag but not bad. fast walk em well lot more movement but nice but on a creek bed? now trot forget that pal thats a no no shakes out your fillings. canter,nice pace but no hands Em far to fast on what we in the film! gallop forget that one.

I hope you now have a little insight on riding a horse Kit. then you did bail out the back end of one so camera lights action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I see. So when discussing how Roger filmed Patty with the camera, we can't discuss totally contradicting versions. McClarin was winging it guessing where Patty walked.

Crow, let me know when some proof Roger could not have filmed Patty from horseback shows up. This thread looks about as promising as the PGF film itself thread. Nothing there, nothing here.

But Mclarin wasn't used to line up the shot. The trees and other inanimate objects were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Absolutely. I haven't spoken to Bob since last year. I generally call him when I have a few important things to discuss. It is not more difficult for me to think he filmed Patty from horseback, but I'm pretty sure I've already discussed this with him. I'd have to check my notes. Now if someone proves to me Roger could not have been on his horse, I don't care what else there is to discuss, I'll call him right away. I have already done a number of things to satisfy me Bob has not lied to me.

It is not about what you believe. Just as it is not about What I believe. Can you prove that Bob H was in the costume and that Roger was filming on a horse? I can't prove that it did not happen that way. I don't see how this can ever be productive either way. It is all just testimony and hearsay, complete with blurry pictures and red circles. I am not saying stop the conversation, I am asking what can really be proven?

Edited by JohnCartwright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rockinkt

well Kit, there's a thing called gait! now gait is from how a horse walks, trots,canters,gallops. now the thing is! each horse don't walk,trot,canter,or gallop the same. some bounce around some less.

some walk real slow and some walk fast.and it goes on much like it does with us really. now forget all that cowboy film stuff you see.it's speed ed up stuff. still with me? now best pace,no hands on reigns a slow walk ok no hands! well how sure footed is your horse. still some sway from the nag but not bad. fast walk em well lot more movement but nice but on a creek bed? now trot forget that pal thats a no no shakes out your fillings. canter,nice pace but no hands Em far to fast on what we in the film! gallop forget that one.

I hope you now have a little insight on riding a horse Kit. then you did bail out the back end of one so camera lights action.

I have spent a lot of time on horses. Most of it in hilly or mountainous terrain. My personal horses were always trained to respond to my knee and heel prods to go forwards, sideways, and left/right.

I always ride armed and have carried and shot both rifle and handgun while hunting off the back of a horse (successfully). I also have thrown spears at a gallop, shot arrows, tried to skewer pumpkins with lances (i.e. - the stupid things you do when you are young).

I have roped and heeled off the back of a horse - not rodeo - just good honest ranch work.

Riding a horse at full gallop while roping is not some trick. It just comes naturally to anyone raised on a ranch. There are hundreds - if not thousands - of people who have all done the same and probably better than me.

Where you get the idea that rodeo film is played fast is beyond me - perhaps you could supply some proof?

Nothing seen in the PGF precludes one using a camera while riding a horse - IMHO - except Munns' calculations and those were based on vertical angle measurements indicating height of camera from the ground, I believe.

I do not have the expertise to review or refute those measurements so I will accept them unless there is some sort of compiling evidence to prove otherwise.

IOW - it is not the lack of skill or the impossibility of the physical act of filming from a horse - it is the proof as supplied by Munns that precludes Roger filming what we see off the back of a horse.

Of course what we don't see - i.e. the original film - may show a time where Roger was filming off the back of the horse and that is what Bob H. remembers. ;):lol:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

You can demand I break a sweat, but until I see proof and not Crowlogic clackety-clakety, you'll have not a bead. Cucumber, as in cool as a...

Time to Sweat... :rolleyes: ...

OpeningSceneMontage5C.jpg

Up....down....ALL AROUND....there ain't no Horsey....to be found... Horsey1.jpg

kitakaze wrote:

Why is this surprising, John?

You know I think BH is Patty, so why would I think he is lying about this? I need proof he could not have been ahorse.

If I get it, I pick up the phone and tell Bob that Roger could not have been on his horse the way he said he was and that he has not been honest with me.

Riiiiiiiiinnnnggg....Riiiiiiinnnnngggg...

"Hello, Bob....ummmm....we have a problem......here's what I need you to say..." :lol:

kitakaze wrote:

Crow, your next post to me should have graphs and pie charts and such in it.

If it has only more "Because I said so", we're going to be here awhile.

Basically, kit....we're done here. Bob Heironimus was not Patty. Bob says Roger was on horseback when he started filming....but those images I put together, above, are the opening Frames of the Film....and the camera was moving fast, and all over the place....without a trace of the head, or any part of, Roger's horse...(as Bill pointed out, earlier.)

As a Bonus....wait til you see my next post, showing signifcant differences in the angles of Bob's and Patty's legs...and feet. :D

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It is amazing to me we are discussing this. There is so much wrong with this.

You are hoaxing a film purportedly showing a bigfoot and you're going to do the filming while on horseback??

And you are going to get on another man's horse, which I assume is not a small horse like Roger's but a full size horse to boot? I am thinking Roger rode a small horse for a reason..he is short..I am speculating that getting on a larger horse may not be as easy as it seems for a short rider use to a smaller horse. I am no horse person so I be all wrong on this.

I would have thought if there was ONE thing that opposing sides would agree on was that Roger was filming while on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thepattywagon

OK, so you're going to have a thread on the filming from horseback things with no proof that is impossible. I was looking forward to some kimchi sweats. I see that it's not going to happen.

My proof of Bob's claims is for a film. You can always send me a PM about what makes you special enough to share it with you first. I was hoping this thread would give me some tough questions for Bob Heironimus.

Kit, this is what vexes me regarding your approach to others here. They are laying out all of the information they can to support their side of the PGF issue, yet you have openly admitted several times that these boards are not where you plan to offer up 'proof' to the contrary.

Documentaries aside, I hope you can see the hypocrisy here. It enables you to use the "proof will be revealed in my documentary" line as an ultimate way out of an argument. If your intent is simply to "get some tough questions for Bob", there is no need for you to argue his case. It is unnecessary if all you are looking for are tough questions.

And finally, the line I bolded is offensive toward the poster it was directed toward, as well as everyone else who participates here. NONE of us are more or less "special" than the other, and that includes yourself. We are all here for one reason; we have an interest in the subject of Bigfoot. I may not be a scientist, biologist, anthropologist or any other 'ist' (wait, that's not quite true), but it does not prohibit me from observing and forming an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

It is amazing to me we are discussing this. There is so much wrong with this.

I would have thought if there was ONE thing that opposing sides would agree on was that Roger was filming while on the ground.

The problem for 'Bob's Believers", in agreeing that Roger shot the film while 'on foot', is that it blows a MAJOR HOLE...( :lol: )..in Heirony's "confession".....because there is simply no way that Heironimus could have mis-remembered that detail.

There's a very big difference between Roger simply standing on the ground and filming....and him getting up onto a horse, to start the filming. If Bob was Patty...he should know the circumstances of the beginning of the filming.

He doesn't....he wasn't. :D

I added another little piece to the picture of the opening sequence... :) ...

OpeningSceneMontage5E.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...