Jump to content

A New Look At The Story Of Bob H


Recommended Posts

Opal herself says she saw Gimlin's green truck pull in with Chico and another horse that night.realy! she can plainly see the truck holds two horses, but never asks the guys why your looking in the trunk of my new car? but how would they know that was were bob left the suit in the car?

Oh I got this one. Apparently Opal not only left her car unlocked - but the keys in either the ignition or on the seat. So, I guess Patterson and Gimlin just jumped into the car, rummaged through just in case the costume was in the car. Lucky enough, it was found in the trunk. LOL. I guess Yakima had a zero crime rate in 1967.

What are the odds? I still don't get why something as important as the "suit" was sent back with Bob H. Especially considering he didn't bring it to the site of filming....

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
You can usually tell who feels like they are 'losing' an argument on the web by the pace of the posting and the faux confidence.

You can usually tell who's argument is inadequate by the manner in which they speculate the opposition's personal feelings and quickness to proclaim them to be losing. I'm feeling quite confident. Impossible timeslines only add to my confidence.

Simple comparisons of the appearance of the head on the PGF subject, to the skeptic approved skeletal reconstruction, compared to the CC recreation are, as Bill points out, inconsistent and not supportive of Bob H or Phil Morris.

I'll do the same for you as I will for Bill. Post a clear pefectly perpendicular shot of Patty's head in profile and I will do the same for Bob.

There does not appear to be enough volume in the head of the PGF subject for Bob H's head if the skeptic approved skeletal reconstruction scale is used, let alone for a football helmet, and then some mask of indeterminate description. As the CC recreation clearly shows, the proportions of the costume head do not compare favorably with the head of the PGF subject. See photos of period correct football gear (shoulder pads and helmets) to see that it is not even close for either theory, including Parnassus' shouldermapads.

Why are you posting images of hard modern style football helmets? Bob described no such thing. He stated the head reminded him of an old time football helmet on the inside...

sleeping%20man_4a3f09c664f2c.jpg

Of course, Kit recently stated he is no longer sure that it was a Phil Morris suit, so he has an out there as that storyline continues to breakdown. But he is tied hip-to-hip to Bob H and Greg Long.

I challenge you to find a single post anywhere ever that says I was sure the PGF showed a modified Morris suit. I have one opinion on this that has never changed - I don't know if it is, but that's the way I lean. Please do not misrepresent my ideas and make strawmen.

If Bob Heironimus and all the people who corroborate his story proven to be nfarious colluders, I would suffer in the slightest. It would't do the slightest bit to help the wreckage of the PGF and all the bunk contradictions around it.

That is the same Bob H whose story is full of holes it aspires one day to have the integrity of cheesecloth, thanks Knight via Mellissa. And it is the same Greg Long who was hoaxed and scammed by Kal Korff and now also Al DeAtely according to someone who posts here regularly, what was that name.....

Kitakaze. You pronounce it key-tuh-kah-zay. Yes, Kal Korff did scam Greg Long, Phil Morris, and Bob Heironimus. Thank you for incorporating details of my investigation into your arguments. I appreciate your confidence in my abilities.

I wonder how cooperative Phil and Amy will be though when they learn Kit is tossing their claims under the bus?

What was the number of that bus? By that I mean the post where I say I don't think the PGF shows a modified Morris suit. I'll wait.

Or is it just another in the ever-expanding list of skeptic-approved 'misrememberings'?

I'm starting a list of PGF believer approved "misrememberings"...

Gimlin told Green that he was there to supply the transportation and his horse. Then oops, he told Murphy Roger got Chico from Heironimus for him because he needed an experienced horse. But oops again, he said he had Chico because he was breaking the horse in for three weeks for Heironimus on a Bigfoot expedition. But oops, this horse already rides in the mountains just fine as we see in photos from May 1967.

Lu, you have any ideas about addressing Gimlin's glaring contradictions?

Check out how memories change over time (eyewitness accounts of Roswell and the Kennedy assassination, e.g.); recent research shows we actually modify them every time we recall them. That's scary, isn't it?

http://www.campsych.com/eyewitness.htm

Chico flail: check.

IM, I don't hate to break this to you: The confidence is real.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Reference, please.

Peter Byrne, MoB, p. 186.

It doesn't matter even if the weather made flying an option. They still could not have driven from Bluff Creek to Eureka to Willow Creek and back to Bluff Creek in the time they stated. They just showed up at Hodgson's that evening with no film. That is all we can confirm. The timeing is impossible. It pretty much guarantees a hoax.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites

not that easy Kit,under what rules do you give no flying was imposed. you make that statement with no concrete across the board proof. you either retract or show.

and my confidence is real. that your can't.

there are many on this site that want you to prove on that date a NO FLYING ban was imposed with proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

What would it matter under what authority flights were grounded? absobloodylutely!the FAA they say you do.

not moot kit!but let me give you a brake,yes VFR grounded. IFR rain NO.so thats the no fly out the wndow.

Byrne, the great white hunter.your having a laughfff.but don't quote me!

Eureka, it's not the only airport and there was one far closer,who handled IFR traffic and postal cargo. a growing trend in those days,a major name these days. did have regular flights from that airport. but thats up to you to find and eliminate has a possible.

Too bad they said they went to Eureka. Too bad the driving time is impossible. Too bad there was no way they could have had that 16mm film developed on a Saturday and ready for viewing Sunday afternoon.

But please keep them coming. I consider this warm up exercise for the Bigfoot Show.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

not that easy Kit,under what rules do you give no flying was imposed. you make that statement with no concrete across the board proof. you either retract or show.

and my confidence is real. that your can't.

there are many on this site that want you to prove on that date a NO FLYING ban was imposed with proof.

You do understand it has no effect on the impossible timeline, right? Driving time. Film development.

The airlines? In 1967, neither Arcata nor Eureka had airports., although there was an airport halfway between Eureka and Arcata. He discovered no scheduled air services that would have carried freight. "That left one thing - a charter." Five charter charter pilots were living in the area in 1967; Byrne tracked down four of them. "Each very graciously either let me see or read from his log books." On October 20, 1967, there was rain and strong winds. "The pilots told me, 'No way would any of us have flown unless it was an extreme emergency.'" The pilots had no record of any of them flying to Yakima or Seattle with a package. the fifthe pilot was dead. Byrne had yet to find the pilots widow.

MoB, p. 186

Charter flights are out. Planes are out. Even if they weren't out, the timeline's still totally impossible.

Oops for PGF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Kitakaze. You pronounce it key-tuh-kah-zay.

Translated: "north wind".

Very appropriate.

Edited by Huntster
Link to post
Share on other sites

that sir is that not the answer, I ask you again,under what rules you state that a no flying ban was imposed. you state a NO FLYING now either show proof that was the case or react it's that simple.

Edited by justwonder
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

that sir is that not the answer, I ask you again,under what rules you state that a no flying ban was imposed. you state a NO FLYING now either show proof that was the case or react it's that simple.

I just gave you Byrne's own account that the pilots would not fly on Oct. 20, 1967. It does not matter if there was a ban or not if the pilots wouldn't fly. It means that much less if they couldn't develop 16mm film on a Saturday and have it in Yakima Sunday afternoon.

You seem to be having great trouble dealing with the impossible timeline. Let's say there was no ban. So what? Byrne met the pilots and went through their logs. None of them flew nor would they have. That boat is sunk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Huntster, on 30 January 2011 - 03:27 PM, said:

Reference, please.

Peter Byrne, MoB, p. 186.

Type the words, please, like I did from the Green book in the other thread. We all know you can type. It won't hurt to confirm your claims.

It doesn't matter even if the weather made flying an option.

It matters to verify your claims.

So get to verifying.

Edited by ChrisBFRPKY
removed negative term
Link to post
Share on other sites

what type rating where those pilots! did Byrne's ask? no flying in the rain or windy come on! again and I will put this plain and simple was there a no flying ban in that area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight, Long says that Byrne said he talked to four of five charter pilots who lived in the area, they showed him their log books which said 'rain and wind' and say they would not have flown.

California contains something like 10-15% of all pilots and planes in the US (about 80,000 and 100,000 respectively nationwide at that time).

20% of the 'identified' potential pilots from the area remain un-interviewed, not to mention the ability of DeAtley, or anyone for that matter, to charter any of hundreds of planes within a short flight time away.

And in SkepticLand that magically becomes 'no charter, no planes, no timeline, PGF is a hoax.'

Then, when pointed out that the statement 'all flights were grounded' appears to be either a factual error/overstatement if not an outright fabrication, the argument becomes 'well, even if was flown (counter to a centerpiece of the skeptic timeline argument), it still means nothing'.

When needed to support the timeline argument, the skeptics glom on to the 'remote nature of the site' and how long it would have taken to drive, but when needed to discredit specific investigators or claims, they suggest the filmsite was 'not remote at all'.

Seriously, if that is the position and approach in play, there is absolutely zero reason to continue to pretend there is even a weak facade of respect for the opposition from the skeptical side in this debate.

Edited by ChrisBFRPKY
removed improper term
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

I challenge you to find a single post anywhere ever that says I was sure the PGF showed a modified Morris suit.

What was the number of that bus? By that I mean the post where I say I don't think the PGF shows a modified Morris suit.

Huh?? The 'great PGF dream ender' doesn't know if any part of a Morris suit is seen in the PGF or not? The Morris' instantly recognized their work when they saw the film, remember? You don't believe them? Have you ever faced the fact that you really have no idea what-so-ever how a suit could be made to look like Patty?

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Huh?? The 'great PGF dream ender' doesn't know if any part of a Morris suit is seen in the PGF or not? The Morris' instantly recognized their work when they saw the film, remember? You don't believe them? Have you ever faced the fact that you really have no idea what-so-ever how a suit could be made to look like Patty?

I have already stated my personal opinion is that their certainty the suit was theirs was because they sold Patterson a suit in August more than what it actually appeared like at the time. Whether Morris' suit was modified and used remains a matter to be tested and filmed in a documentary. That is how I face the fact that I don't know for certain if the suit they sold Patterson was used in the PGF. Through Harvey Anderson we have independent corroboration through a Yakima businessman of Roger renting another suit from Hollywood in 1961. He's had practice, according to Anderson.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...