Jump to content

When Skeptics Talk About The Costume Bob Heironimus Allegedly Wore.


Guest Kerchak

Recommended Posts

Guest Kerchak

Which particular 'costume' that Bob Heironimus claims he was wearing are you skeptics referring to?

1. The dead red horse skin costume that was easy to walk in, with waist high waders, a t-shirt like torso arrangement with no metal or fasteners, in his stockinged feet inside the costume that had old house slippers built in and with his eyes/face a couple inches from the mask?

Or.

2. The fake fur Phil Morris costume with a zipper up and down the back that wasn't easy to walk in, with knee high waders, with his shoes on inside the costume and no house slippers built in and with his eyes/face a quarter to half an inch away from the mask?

Also was this magical ever changing costume the one that Bob H claims he brought back from Bluff Creek in early October, weeks before the film was announced? Or the one he claims he brought back on the same day that Patterson went into town and announce the footage before it was developed (October 20th)?

Is it the same costume Bob H claimed he never spoke to his mother Opal about and never came up in conversation between them? Or is it the costume that allegedly scared his mother Opal and she wanted to know what was going on and while watching the PGF together on t.v she asked "that's the costume that was in my car trunk, wasn't it?

Is it the same costume that Bob Heironimus never saw being retrieved by Patterson and Gimlin from the car or is it the same costume that he actually saw being retrieved from the car by a very happy Patterson and Gimlin?

I'm really confused so can you in future please clarify which particular costume you are talking about? Because Bob Heironimus is all over the place with them.

Many thanks.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This skeptic doesn't put much stock in pretty much anything BH says, but then I don't put much stock in pretty much anything Patterson said too, so it kind of evens out.

I'm willing to change my mind if someone drags in either the suit or a body (or part) however.

RayG

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

So no skeptic advocating Bob H wants to clarify?

Why am I not surprised they aren't going near this thread with a barge pole?

This skeptic doesn't put much stock in pretty much anything BH says,

It's a shame that you don't challenge the Bob H campaigners here then.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

I'm a skeptic. It's been forty years and neither side has been able to secure a definitive answer. I personally lean towards a hoax, but it's not a closed case IMO.

I think most people have put this film in the "maybe" category and are waiting for some new evidence. If BF does exist, there should be new evidence put forth at some point. Every day that passes without promising evidence, reduces the PGF plausibility.

And the clock is ticking, many fence sitters like myself are leaning towards the hoax side of the fence. I've been at it for ten years and nothing. It strongly suggests it's a hoax and BF does not exist.

Edited by gigantor
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

^

""I'm a skeptic".

Yes but my question goes out to skeptics who are advocating it was Bob H in a suit. There are a few of them on this forum (2 of them posted in the PGF section yesterday) and I'd like them to clarify which 'suit' Bob H is referring to.

If you are not pushing the Bob H claim then my question isn't to you.

Edited by Kerchak
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

I hear you, but that's the minutia that one can argue for years, errr... have argued for years and nothing comes of it. I guess if you guys want to beat a dead horse, this is the place to do it. :)

Have at it, I just wanted to put in my 2 cents. So here it is, Bob H was not Patty.

Edited by gigantor
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

""So here it is, Bob H was not Patty.""

Hehe then you get a free pass and a bag of nuts. :gaming:

I give more credibility to folks who think the PGF might be a fake but that it wasn't Bob H.

No true critical thinker could ever possibly argue Patty was Bob H.

Edited by Kerchak
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BF believer

No true critical thinker could ever possibly argue Patty was Bob H.

No one could ever possibly argue Patty was anything other than real if they have seen the Munns report, among various others. How anyone can still not see that this is a real flesh and blood creature is beyond me. I'm not the type of person who believes everything 100% but Patty is real, that I know (my opinion) In-depth analysis of the film has proven this. I've noticed the usual suspects haven't come forward with a reply just yet. I await their response.

Edited by MikeG
Personal comment removed.
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

It's not about intelligence so you shouldn't go there. It's more about having strong convictions that aren't easily swayed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that you don't challenge the Bob H campaigners here then.

I believe I've put forth my challenge for a suit/body many times. It's an equal challenge to both sides of the argument, though logically, bigfoot proponents have an easier time providing a body. (one specific suit vs hundreds if not thousands of bigfoot).

No true critical thinker could ever possibly argue Patty was Bob H.

Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' argument. Good one.

BF believer, I don't have an ounce of intelligence because I don't agree with your conclusions? Let's try again. This time you start with a non-fallacious argument, and we'll go from there.

RayG

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I've put forth my challenge for a suit/body many times. It's an equal challenge to both sides of the argument, though logically, bigfoot proponents have an easier time providing a body. (one specific suit vs hundreds if not thousands of bigfoot).

[/font][/color]

RayG

You certainly have said that the purported *suit* had to be provided and I will personally vouch for your having done so on numerous occasions.

There just isn't any legitimate doubt about your consistently advocating that stance.

Get your point on the number of reports seemingly making it easier for the proponents to provide a body but do not personally agree.

If the entire *PGF hoax theory/BH in a suit* has any semblance of accuracy/relevance then that just can't be proven without *the* suit.

Not just any suit, but *the* suit that is/was fashioned from the available material at the time. Not what we have today.

I'm not saying I totally believe that the PGF is real but I lean towards belief that it is and would cite the length of time folks have been trying to prove it was a hoax without success as well as the ongoing and incredible/credible work of Bill Munn's as my main reasoning.

Just saying that sans *the* suit that it can't be proven a hoax and I've read enough of your posts over the years to know that you and I agree on that perspective.

But let's say that *the* suit is found. For me that doesn't mean that the countless eyewitness reports since then are discounted and the mystery solved by any stretch.

IOW's if the PGF is proven to be an hoax today, that would not solve the mystery.

There's just too many reports from credible folks for there not to be something of merit to them IMO.

I've always viewed The PGF as corroborative evidence that served to compliment the continuous sightings/reports.

Bill's final conclusions will play a huge role for me in whether that changes or not.

If the suit is not produced, and Bill's research leads him to deem the PGF real, then it would then gain much more credence for me and I suspect many others as related to its importance in our belief.

Love The PGF, and I get tickled at times at the intense efforts to prove it an hoax that have thus far fallen woefully short. But if it was proven to be a hoax, that still would not discount all of the sightings/witness reports.

I'd be saddened if Patterson and Gimlin were not awarded Academy Awards of some sort for the film withstanding skeptical scrutiny for over 40 years were *the* suit ever produced and it meeting the standards of the available material in the 60's.

Best comparison I have for the time is the original Planet of the Apes movie and the suits in the film.

Not too bad for two rodeo cowboys if they came up with a suit that blew away what the most creative folks in Hollywood could provide in POTA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the costume was made of, and whoever was wearing it, should be asked of Bob Gimlin, at the same time he is asked about why he never told anyone he was riding Bob Heironymous' horse Chico at Bluff Creek.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

K:

Are you asking people to respond to your version of what Bob H. said or to what he actually said?

If the latter, then please provide verbatim quotes in context, along with the date and venue.

If the former, then "crickets."

thanks,

p.

Edited by parnassus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

^

Don't play the innocent, stalling for time Parnassus.

You know FULL WELL I have already given Bob H's quotes and the source dates in the '"Self Contradictions of Bob Heironimus" thread. I have already given his word for word quotes, the radio stations he said the quotes and provided the date he made said quotes.

Now, can you answer MY question for once, instead of asking your own questions, which I have already provided the answers to before??

I'm not interested in playing your games and your side stepping.

My question is simple and perfectly reasonable.

Which 'suit' do you think Bob H had?

Whatever the costume was made of, and whoever was wearing it, should be asked of Bob Gimlin, at the same time he is asked about why he never told anyone he was riding Bob Heironymous' horse Chico at Bluff Creek.

Take it to another thread Drew. Got NUFFIN' to do with THIS thread. Try not to deliberately take this thread off topic, ta. That's what we call 'derailing'.

Now, do you want to answer my thread title question or not?

Edited by Kerchak
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...