Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

A New Look At The Story Of Bob H

Recommended Posts

kitakaze
I invite you to stop making this untenable argument that weaknesses in Gimlin’s details damage his claim as much as Hieronimous’ s is damaged by weaknesses in what he says.

I invite you to prove Patterson and Gimlin filmed the PGF on October 20. Just because they pop out in the evening to see Al Hodgson with no film doesn't mean they shot it that day. I invite you to explain how they were able to have the film ready for viewing on October 22 when they could not physically have gotten to Eureka and back in the time they say, weather prevented any flights, and DeAtley's pilot was not in the country. I invite you to explain why Gimlin has them arriving on October 1 and Patterson has them arriving a full two weeks later on October 14th. Gimlin says he drove the truck every night on the logging roads and it went on like that for a few days, not few weeks.

Hieronimous is a latecomer making some pretty unbelievable claims with hardly anything to back him up. Gimlin has other real participants and tangible evidence of his role supporting him, so his words can have a few inconsistencies without putting him at the bottom of the deep blue sea with Bob Hieronimous.

Fil-flarn. Double standards are double standards. Gimlin's stories are everywhere. Having a film that is impossible to be made the way they said it did and tracks that are easily faked is no help to Patterson and Gimlin falling all over themselves. Heironimus has multiple people in Yakima knowing his involvement since the 60's and DeAtley himself admits knowing Heironimus through Roger. Gimlin and Heironimus' boss at Noel Corporation said himself that it was common knowledge at the workplace. He's no late-comer. He was there and he was involved with Roger's Bigfoot ventures.

The extension sticks --broom handles, was it not---were recommended by Morris to Roger Patterson as a way to extend the costume arms, with gloves attached to the stick ends. BH said that he wore the Morris suit. Yes, extension sticks.

Fister

Suggested by Morris to Patterson does not equate Heironimus describing them. He never said anything about extensions and his arms in the Cow Camp suit show he didn't need them. You're introducing elements that were never described by the person who said they were in the suit. You can't just drop something in because another person suggested it.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks for the link Melissa. I thought I had seen something that concisely eviscerated Bob H's inconsistent claims and timelines but could not put my finger on it.

Turn out the lights, the party's over...

You're very welcome. Bob H's own words ruin his story. I am more than willing to evaluate a claim by anyone to have been the person in the "Patty Suit".. But, how many years does Bob H need to get it right??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Making alphabet soup with Roger Knights...

You know Alex, I had forgot until just the other day that Roger Knights wrote up a review of Greg Long's book, titled "26 Reasons Heironimus Wasn't "Queen Kong", June 20, 2005. It is still just as valid as the day Roger Knights wrote it. I don't think any of the "Reasons" have ever been explained, or anyone has ever tried to answer those very valid questions.

Here is a link to the review. It's an excellent read. Scroll down the page, until you see the review titled "26 Reasons Heironimus Wasn't "Queen Kong", June 20, 2005."

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

"26 reasons" soup...

A - Heironimus' description of the suit being different than Morris' is not Heironimus contradicting Heironimus. BH could have remembered wrong or remembered right. Morris' suit could have either been significantly altered with funds from DeAtely after him seeing the Morris suit, or an entirely new one created. Knights fail.

B - Knights claims to have interviewed Gary Record. I have done this myself. He made absolutely clear it was an evening in October 1967 and he was not in the military at the time. He said it was about 9pm. I have interviewed three of the other witnesses present. Knights fail.

C - Heironimus confusing Weitchpec with Willow Creek is a simple mistake. Knights fail.

D - Heironimus saying Patterson never left his horse is irrelevant. Clearly, Patty is filmed from changing positions. Nothing proves that he ever went to his elbows, as Gimlin claimed. Knights fail.

E - Heironimus never stated on p. 349 that he walked across Bluff Creek in the Patty suit at all. "I came to the creek. I walked through the sand. I walked across here - through a few trees right here." Greg was showing him a crude map he sketched. He enever said he walked through the creek. Knights fail.

F - Heironimus never claimed the filming took place in early September. Only Long reasoned that. Bob said it was the first week of October. Also, in a recorded video interview, Gimlin says they arrived at Bluff creek on either the last day of September, or the first day of October. The Times-Standard interview done that day of Oct. 20 says they arrived the previous Saturday. Knights fail.

G - On p. 350 there is absolutely nothing about Roger removing the suit from the sack before giving it to BH to transport back to Yakima. It makes perfect sense for Roger to have the suit with him for as little as possible while staging the event. Also, Knights suggests there might be bystanders to see Roger hand the suit to Heironimus. This makes no sense whatsoever. Knights fail.

H - It makes no sense for Heironimus to drop the suit at Gimlin's upon his return to Yakima. Gimlin is not there. Also, Knights thinks Gimlin has to stop at his own home first to feed and water the horses. Opal herself says she saw Gimlin's green truck pull in with Chico and another horse that night. Knights fail.

I - Knights insists it is irrational for BH to mail the film as instructed by Patterson, and that it would be better to take it himself. Knights fails to think like a hoaxer and understand that they need the film to go through the mail to DeAtley to fit their story. Knights fail.

J - Nothing at all necessitates that Heironimus was receive and keep to this day a postal receipt of the shipment of the film. The argument is special pleading. Heironimus does not imply at all that he never saw Roger again. Howard and Bob both told me they did. DeAtley says he knew BH through Roger. Knights fail.

K - "P&G's making two trips to Bluff Creek is unlikely, since they lacked the time and money for such gallivanting." Gimlin said they arrived the last day of September, or the first day of October. That's three weeks. They have plenty of time for two trips. Money? DeAtley. Knights fail.

L - "BH never described writing or talking to Patterson requesting payment," - Roger was away promoting the film. Not even the police in yakima could find him. Heironimus did approach DeATley about getting paid in 1970 at a Waylon Jennings concert. I have interviewed three witnesses of the event. DeAtley confirmed what Bob said, and he confirmed he knew Bob through Roger. How can DeAtley know Bob through Roger if he had no involvement with Roger's Bigfoot ventures other then lending him some cash for his book publishing? Knights fail.

M - "BH failed to hire a lawyer to threaten to sue Patterson & DeAtley when they were raking in the dough and a threat of exposure would have had leverage to obtain far more than his $1000 debt." Knights thinks a twenty-something Heironimus would have the time, money, and evidence to hire a lawyer to take on the King of Superior Asphalt. Knights fail

N - Bob failed to complain bitterly about Patterson in private? Long's book is littered with people who spoke with Bob over the decades about him being in the suit and getting played by Al and Roger. Knights fail.

O - "BH told his friends that he didn't want to publicly make a stink about being stiffed because he hoped for eventual payment by Patterson (p. 398). If so, it would have been irrational for him to have acted as he did--i.e., by occasionally spilling the beans and/or showing off the suit."

1) BH showing his brother and close friends the suit in the trunk of his mom's car upon his return while tailgating at the Idle Hour is the reason we have witnesses to the event.

2) O totally contradicts the reasoning of N.

Knights fail.

P - BH saying to Greg at the time of their first interviews that he didn't remember showing the suit is no contradiction. He had driven for many hours and he was having a few beers after with his brother and friends. It's OK for him to not remember at the time. People are allowed to recall specific events decades after the fact and not remember at first. The fact is that there were not only several witnesses of the event connected to BH, Les Johnson witnessed the event and had no connection to BH at all. Knights fail.

Q - Q is P. Heironimus is allowed to not recall the event at first decades after the fact. Knights fail.

R - Knights offers no specifics of his conversation with Paul Falon, and implies that he thinks Falon was protecting BH. As with Gary Record, Knights is putting what he wants to hear on a witness. Falon may have simply told Knights he never saw the suit or was around when it was shown on that one occasion. Again, I have spoken with four of these witnesses. Knights fail.

S - Knights expecting BH to do more than show the suit to his friends and brother briefly upon return is special pleading. We can't force a 1967 BH to use 2005 RK thinking. Knights fail.

T - BH passed two polygraphs. You could argue that the first could have been controlled by him, but the second broadcast on national TV was not. Knights fail.

U - RK says he has a source who says BH's employer was not having a workers strike at the time of the filming. He also again special pleads how BH should think. He's already definitely screwed up one witnesses testimony. This person may not be real, or this person may not have remembered correctly, or Bob might have not remembered correctly why he had the time to go to Bluff Creek. What is a fact is that he was involved with Roger, was a friend of Gimlin's, and Al DeAtley says he did know him through Roger. Knights fail.

V - RK confirms that Opal confirm's BH's description of the suit. He expects that because she remembered the face, she must remember more, and that because more isn't written, Long must have heard contradictory descriptions and omitted it. Why does RK insist on constantly special pleading? Knights fail.

W - Knights math. RK says the degree of knee bending of a man in his seventies does not match Patty. Roger should try having the knees of someone in their seventies before such nitpicking. Knights fail.

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

Knights fail.

Y - "Such extensive suit modifications would have been necessary to produce a torso, head, and limbs as thick and well-defined as Patty's that an expert tailor and lots of extra fur would have been required. So why bother to buy a suit in the first place?" We don't know if experts were used or not. Roger could have attempted to make Patty and Al did not like the outcome, and paid for an alteration or an entirely new suit. Knights fail.

Z - Knight pareidolia. RK tells us about all manner of anatomical wonders in a suit where others, including professionals, see a bad suit with a diaper butt and ridiculous features, such as what I refer to as tummy rocks. The fact is that BH says there was padding in the butt, shoulders, and head, and that is consistent with what is seen. For Knights to have an argument here, he needs a consensus. When Bill Munns says real, but Chris Walas, Rick Baker, and many others say fake, you do not have concensus. Knights fail.

26 x Knights fail.

That was not only easy, many of the points have been addressed ad nauseum.

Can I see the next challenge?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You're very welcome. Bob H's own words ruin his story. I am more than willing to evaluate a claim by anyone to have been the person in the "Patty Suit".. But, how many years does Bob H need to get it right??

Bob G's own words ruin his story. How many years does Bob G need to get it right? He can't make up his mind why he has Chico. He says he was there three weeks since October 1, compared to Roger's one week since October 14, and says he was driving the logging roads every night and it went on like that for a few days before they filmed Patty. You could rule out BH and it wouldn't do a single thing to save Gimlin from his own blunders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

I feel like someone is shouting and not listening properly at all.

It's bedtime where I am, so goodnight and God bless any bigfoots who might be out there.....

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I invite you to prove Patterson and Gimlin filmed the PGF on October 20. Just because they opo out in the evening to see Al Hodgson with no film doesn't mean they shot it that day.

and I invite you! to tell us why Patterson & Gimlin make that long trip home on the dates given?.yet BH on his return he leaves the suit in his mothers car trunk,would you not think that he was told not to let anyone see it? that would of been the whole dam point?yet Patterson and Gimlin then having got the suit and dropped off the horse also being seen doing it!make that trip back down and go public on the evening of the 20th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Yes, my argument is predicated upon the fact that Roger was going to Bluff Creek not once or even twice, but multiple times. He was in NorCal at least four times in 1967. In September he was there after Green and Dahinden were duped by Wallace on Blue Creek Mountain Road, yet Gimlin says they were at Mt. St. Helens on Labor Day weekend and a week later Patterson came and said they needed to get to California!

September, 1967 Roger Patterson poured a plaster of paris cast of a left & right 9" child's track

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sightings.htm

That is a big, fat deal.

89614c8427372ab9f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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?

Edited by justwonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

1) Opal never claimed to be able to see them at the trunk of her car. You are imagining she must have been able to see it.

2) Heironimus says he put the suit in the trunk because that was what he was told to do. Howard and Opal Heironimus, Willa Smitth, and John Miller all claim to have seen it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

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

As a general rule of creature costume making, we can only add to the physical features of the human wearing the costume, so if we want to make something look smaller than the human's anatomy, we have to build up around the area to look smaller, and create the illusion with that addition. The problem is, by adding to reshape a feature, the overall anatomy gets bigger.

Patty has a remarkably small head, for the reshaped way it has a very low cranium and a sloping back crest going back after what appears to be a brow ridge. And then the face or muzzle is quite flattened as well. Usually, to reshape a normal human head into a configuration like that, the result is a quite big head for the body, and the PGF doesn't show this.

Could you explain what design of prosthetic illusion Roger used to make Bob H. look that way and keep the relatively small head? Based on the recreation Morris helped with and Bob H wore for the TV program, they didn't succeed the second time around, because the forhead is too big by far. What did Roger do that Morris couldn't duplicate?

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

you don't answer the question why the need to make that drive to collect the suit on that date,if the intended date to go public was the 20th why give the suit to BH knowing they would have to return! it's not logical. an expensive time waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Heironimus confusing Weitchpec with Willow Creek is a simple mistake. not simple I pulled into this gas station where they said they would be. Weitchpec is impossible, because there was NO gas station on the left-hand side of the road (where Heironimus had repeatedly placed it, according to Long) in Weitchpec in 1967 as Long conceded (on p. 438).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

you don't answer the question why the need to make that drive to collect the suit on that date,if the intended date to go public was the 20th why give the suit to BH knowing they would have to return! it's not logical. an expensive time waste.

It's quite simple. They do the film earlier in October and make sure all evidence of hoaxing has been removed from the copies they will make and the suit is hidden. They send it back with Heironimus after filming because they want the suit in their possession while in NorCal as little as possible. When they return to stage the event they do not need to bring any suit with them. They never bring any film to Al Hodgson's store so he doesn't know for sure if they're telling the truth. An the believer argument is screwed. You still have a film that can not in any physical possibility be transpotered and developed in the manner claimed. It's right out the window.

We have Patterson in NorCal in September 1967 after Wallace dupes Green and Byrne at the end of August, but then he's supposed to be at Mt. St. Helens with Gimlin between September 1-4 and then a week later coming back to Gimlin and saying he needs to get down to NorCal with him. Gimlin says they arrive October 1 and stay three weeks. Patterson says the arrive October 14 and stay one week. Gimlin is saying three weeks because he was there earlier.

That is a huge stink for the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Heironimus confusing Weitchpec with Willow Creek is a simple mistake. not simple I pulled into this gas station where they said they would be. Weitchpec is impossible, because there was NO gas station on the left-hand side of the road (where Heironimus had repeatedly placed it, according to Long) in Weitchpec in 1967 as Long conceded (on p. 438).

Confusing place names starting with "W" is not a simple mistake? Long identified the Bluff Creek Company Store as the place he thought most like to have been the 5:00 pm meeting place. In 1967 it was a gas station.

One week vs three weeks is not a simple mistake. "I was breaking the horse in for three week as a favour," vs "Roger borrowed it for me because I did not have an experienced horse" is not a simple mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

weather prevented any flights! under what rules kit? FAA VFR or IFR?

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...