Jump to content

A New Look At The Story Of Bob H


Recommended Posts

Huntster

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'.

Yeah. I think you have it straight.

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 intellectual honesty or respect for the opposition from the skeptical side in this debate.

Again, you have it straight.

You're dealing with the lawyer type. Inject doubt. That's all that needs to be done in order to kill the possibility.

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

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 intellectual honesty or respect for the opposition from the skeptical side in this debate.

4 of 5 log books for the only area pilots show planes grounded by wind and rain as reported by a PGF proponent investigator. We can reasonably assume the fifth will not say clear skies and a trip to Seattle to deliver a film.

The distance of the PGF film site to Eureka is part of the problem, not the relative proximity of the film site to humankind. Patty was filmed in an area that was the literal stomping grounds of a hoaxer and had a timber crew in the area who never reported any Bigfoots about, even one with a diaper butt and hairy scuds on its lower torso.

The impossible drive and impossible flight are but parts of the impossible timeline. Looming over them is the impossibility of being able to develop the 16mm film on Saturday Oct. 21 and ready for viewing in Yakima on Sunday Oct. 22. Totally impossible. It's the Achilles heel of the PGF and proponents have been unable to ever deal with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Roger Knights, Bill Miller, whoever. Bring me the PGF believer Ivan Drago.

I want the best of the best. There is not a single pro-PGF argument that I can't knock out of the park

Bob Heironimus has been knocked down, in the 'Heironimus' thread...by simple comparisons, kit.

And you can't do a thing about it. :)

kitakaze wrote:

X - BH's proportions don't match Patty's?

(Computer-generated skeleton Video)

Knights fail.

They don't match. And you can't do a thing to show that they do.

YOU fail. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Bob Heironimus has been knocked down, in the 'Heironimus' thread...by simple comparisons, kit.

And you can't do a thing about it.

Sure he can. He can continue to deny it.

That's what denialists do best. Deny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

...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.

Oh! You think they think it is definitely a Morris suit because (according to them) they sold a suit to Roger Patterson. And, it's not really because of anything in particular that they actually see in the film.) gotcha! :blink:

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.

Hmmmm. From our legal studies here, is that not at least a double-hearsay? Did they also hear-say that Roger never returned the suit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Oh! You think they think it is definitely a Morris suit because (according to them) they sold a suit to Roger Patterson. And, it's not really because of anything in particular that they actually see in the film.) gotcha! :blink:

Yes, that's correct. I think the fact they sold Patterson a suit in August 1967 was the greatest factor in influencing their perceptions. It's just my personal opinion and there's nothing bizarre about it.

Hmmmm. From our legal studies here, is that not at least a double-hearsay? Did they also hear-say that Roger never returned the suit?

No, it is not. Harvey Anderson is the Yakima businessman. Greg Long called him out of the blue and he then interviewed Anderson where Anderson spoke of the hoaxing admission Patterson made to him personally at his shop Anderson's Sport and Camera Shop.

I talk about Anderson all the time. Please pay closer attention.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sure he can. He can continue to deny it.

That's what denialists do best. Deny.

Well, I wouldn't deny that, Hunster. :)

In addition to denial, kit is de-running from the measurements/comparisons...in the 'Heironimus' thread.

He doesn't 'go there'....literally. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

A thing to show that they do...

The computer-generated skeletons have been shown to be in error, in graphics that I've made. I will be posting them here, on this Board.

Additionally, they don't even account for lateral dimensions....which contain some significant differences, in lengths, between Bob and Patty.

YOU FAIL....because you cannot find any significant errors in the comparison graphics that I've posted in the Heironimus thread.

If Bob matched Patty....then there MUST be significant errors in those graphics....but you can't point any out.

YOU FAIL.

It's just that simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The computer-generated skeletons have been shown to be in error, in graphics that I've made. I will be posting them here, on this Board.

Feel free to post your graphics proving exactly in which way Poser 7 and DAZ Studio's separate physics engines fail. Better yet, use an actual skeleton. Whatever happened to you oding an actual suit experiment using your own body? 2011 and it's still fudged lines and subjectively placed dots on the computer screen. Why not try some fresh material?

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 of 5 log books for the only area pilots show planes grounded by wind and rain as reported by a PGF proponent investigator. We can reasonably assume the fifth will not say clear skies and a trip to Seattle to deliver a film.

I am going to focus on this one question because it indicates a significant error in methodology IMO which results at least in part from not recognizing and respecting the limits of ones' knowledge/experience base.

First off, it is not only possible but likely that there would have been a pilot willing to make any particular flight on any given night, under any given conditions - as the cliche goes, money talks and BS walks.

Outside of the basic visual and instrument flight rules, the Pilot-in-Command is the final authority as to the conduct of any flight. Period. Regardless, the original assertion as presented in this thread and in previous threads on the timeline was not that 'the 4 pilots Byrne interviewed decided not to fly', it was that a statement, as if a fact, that 'ALL FLIGHTS WERE GROUNDED'.

The simple fact of the matter is that the air traffic control system in 1967 was primitive and no where near as widely dispersed as it is today. Most airports in the NorCal area in '67 would not have been controlled by a Tower, leaving the pilot's to operate at their own discretion. Put another way, this whole 'flights were grounded' story strikes me as a bit of fabrication based on a very superficial understanding of systems that were not only not in place, but which did not really exist in '67. Even so, unless going into a large controlled airport like SEATAC, there would have been very little Air Traffic Control direction in the Seattle area either.

This whole 'all flights were grounded' assertion can be demonstrably proven true or false, if any aspiring investigative reporter type, especially one who wishes to use the so-called 'impossible flight' as a foundational element in presenting an argument about timeline, would take on the effort to answer the simple questions I asked some time back. Specifically:

  • What specific kind of plane was flown?
  • Which airports were involved in the flight, from when the pilot first took off, until it touched down in Seattle?
  • What were the specific weather conditions? Here is a hint, 'windy and rainy' is in no way adequate. Wind direction and speed, visibility, cloud deck, and time-of-day would be a good start.

Since it is unlikely that this information exists, or if it does that it will be shared, the whole process used to evaluate and pick 'supporting evidence' takes on greater importance.

For example, how, precisely, did Byrne (whom I like and look up to BTW) determine how many area pilots could have conducted such a flight? Did he limit himself to pilots with their own planes or did he look at local charter operators? What 'area' did he use (e.g., Yakima, or NorCal)? What records did he use? What are the specifics of the flight story?

This is important because I could be near Bluff Creek in a little over 3 hours from San Diego, in any of several airplanes likely to have been used, but some are significantly faster and could have covered 400-500 miles in less than 2 hours, no problem for someone with Al DeAtley's resources (and experience probably as a regional businessman).

Speaking for myself, I don't know these flight story details by heart because the whole attack on the PGF backstory/timeline holds little interest for me. I remember vaguely the section in Long's 'book' from when I read it several years ago, but as I have stated before I did not find it remarkable beyond the fact that it seemed to have been sloppily researched, appeared to have been hastily written, and thinking about it now, it suggested behaviors for pilots that fell well outside of my 25 years of flying experience.

In a wider sense, why is Byrne's testimony here to be taken as gospel, when the very same skeptics point to their belief that this same man was, in their estimation, hoaxed by Wallace and Marx, and as such his opinions/positions and research should be questioned?

And lastly, how does 4 out of 5, of an indeterminate total possible number of pilots, equate to 'all flights were grounded'?

Of course we all know that it did not/does not mean that. The real question becomes what is the origin of 'all flights were grounded'? Was it a 'poor choice of words'? Was it an error made as a result of ignorance? Or was it a deliberate misrepresentation made to 'enhance' the timeline story.

Who said it first? Was it Byrne? Was it Long? Was it one of the skeptics here on BFF?

20% of Byrne's limited sample remains unknown, and someone with no flight experience assumes surely the other pilot would do the same, and then equates that to 'all flights were grounded'.

Seems to take jumping to conclusions to the Olympic level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Feel free to post your graphics proving exactly in which way Poser 7 and DAZ Studio's separate physics engines fail. Better yet, use an actual skeleton. Whatever happened to you doing an actual suit experiment using your own body?

Thanks...I will. :)

I will also be using myself as a 'stand in' for Heironimus....to show that there is absolutely no way to replicate the dimensions of Patty, with Heironimus' body dimensions, and a padded suit.

2011 and it's still fudged lines and subjectively placed dots on the computer screen. Why not try some fresh material?

It's Monday...2011....and Bob isn't Patty... :) ...

BobPattyArmGapArmLengthComp2.jpg

To go along with that graphic....there is analysis, I've been working on, which will show some significant differences in lateral dimensions/lengths, associated with the 'chest/torso width'...and the 'gap' between the upper-arm/elbow and the side of the upper-torso.

But, even without the numbers in place....the differences in their upper-body dimensions are easy to see.

Those 'lateral dimensions' are an aspect of the body which is not covered by the (error-riddled) computer-generated skeletons.

Fun Fact: Physical reality TRUMPS computer-generated images.

kit prefers 'computer generated images'. I wonder why.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
First off, it is not only possible but likely that there would have been a pilot willing to make any particular flight on any given night, under any given conditions - as the cliche goes, money talks and BS walks.

(snip)

This is important because I could be near Bluff Creek in a little over 3 hours from San Diego, in any of several airplanes likely to have been used, but some are significantly faster and could have covered 400-500 miles in less than 2 hours, no problem for someone with Al DeAtley's resources (and experience probably as a regional businessman).

The first part where this reasoning fails is that DeAtley is adamant that he had absolutely no funding for the PGF trip or anything other than an amount of money for a book publisher in 1966 prior to the PGF coming out. He was very clear in asserting Roger did not have his money to spend in California. Money talks? How does money talk if you don't have any? How could Roger possibly afford three entire weeks in Bluff creek and then dropping the money to charter a flight only to ship a film in what was serious bad weather when four area pilots said no way would they have flown?

But none of that matters because...

Of course we all know that it did not/does not mean that. The real question becomes what is the origin of 'all flights were grounded'? Was it a 'poor choice of words'? Was it an error made as a result of ignorance? Or was it a deliberate misrepresentation made to 'enhance' the timeline story.

No, my choice of words was based on remembering Byrne reviewing the flight records. And please can you attempt to reign in speculation about personal motives? It's unnecessary for civil discussion. Your 25 years of flying experience is well and good, but it means nothing when Patterson claimed to have simply mailed the film from the post office at Eureka.

Al Hodgson recalled that Patterson and Gimlin arrived at his store shortly after 6:00 pm. Patterson stated that he mailed the film from the main post office in Eureka to Yakima so he had no film in hands when he popped up at Hodgson's store. He said from Bluff Creek they drove down Highway 96 to Martins Ferry bridge, over the Bald Hills Rd to Highway 101, and then south to Eureka. Patterson and Gimlin were said to leave the PGF site at 3:30 pm. In 2004 Daniel Perez drove this route himself and clocked it (Bigfoot Times newsletter, November 2004. It's about 3 hours each way considering the road conditions (they said it was raining heavily) and the vehicle used, but Perez did it in 2.5 hours. Even at 2.5 hours, you still have 5 hours just driving time and no allowance for time spent in Eureka mailing the film. They can not possibly have actually used the post office as they said, as it would have been closed. They have to get from Bluff Creek to Eureka, do the mailing, then they need to get to Willow Creek by around 6:30 pm. That film then needs to get to Seattle or Yakima, then be sent somewhere on a Saturday that can handle 16mm film processing in 24 hours starting on a Saturday to be on DeAtley's film projector in Yakima on Sunday afternoon..

Totally impossible. The timeline impossibility is a wall that PGF believers have never been able to scale.

Source: Bigfoot Film Journal, Chris Murphy, p.37.

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.

infoman, I have a question (and I will pray it makes sense).. Could Bob H have walked into any post office and said "I want this mailed" and have it sent by plane? I ask this because when Bob H discusses this, he does not say "I was told to send this film via plane" he just says - he mailed it. There is no mention of a plane by Bob H, in any of his public comments on this issue (that I can find). Does there need to be specific wording in order to get a package flown to a destination instead of regular mail routes?

If Bob H did accomplish this task, he certainly does not discuss it. Was this something common back in the day? Would this be something done by everyone?

The following links are to comments in Bob H's own words - transcribed by Roger Knights.

http://img16.imageshack.us/i/mailingthefilm1.jpg/

http://img510.imageshack.us/i/mailingthefilm2.jpg/

http://img810.imageshack.us/i/mailingthefilm3.jpg/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Melissa, he could have done anything, since all we have are his inconsistent statements.

He could have requested some form of priority mail and even in those days the USPS used aircraft for faster delivery between cities and states - no FedEx back in the day. There would also have been what is called counter-to-counter shipping via the scheduled airlines, one-way air freight by Part 135 service, and of course simple charter.

But since Bob H can't even keep his story straight about whether or not he slept in Eureka, I frankly put zero trust in his statement that not only was he the guy in the suit, he was the guy who was entrusted to mail the film, and he was the guy entrusted to bring suit back.

None of that makes sense if the PGF were a deliberate hoax unless Bob H had a much longer and far more involved role in the PGF than even his most fanciful flight of imagination has produced to-date.

It does however make sense if it is only Bob H inserting himself into events he had nothing to do with.

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