Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

If A Suit And Not Bh Then Who?

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Whether Bob denied involvement in the South Fork film is irrelevant to his denial of involvement in the PGF.

Exactly how is it irrelevant? It's hardly irrelevant considering he denied it only at the same time he denied involvement in Roger's South Fork film and never after. Once again, did Bob Heironimus deny involvement in a film he was actually in?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Why? It's hardly irrelevant considering he denied it only at the same time he denied involvement in Roger's South Fork film and never after.

This falls under what I brought up previously:

all we would have to do is concoct some story to convince ourselves that it was really him.

the same benefits given to Bob H including a colorful story to make it sound plausible.

Denying one incident doesn't give any credence to the other, except when trying to make the story sound more plausible.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If I were a hoax proponent (which I am not) and thought Roger Patterson was a conniving serial hoaxer (which I do not) then I would guess that 'Patty' must be the same very heavy circa 7ft guy who was running around near Yakima and Richland dressed as greyish white bigfoot in 1966.

I see no reason why Patterson would dump the successful and experienced heavy 7ft tall guy for the shorter and thinner and inexperienced Bob Heironimus.

Kerchak..where is this from? Any place to read more about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Sorry, doesn't work. The only time Bob Heironimus has ever denied being in a Roger Patterson film was when he also denied being in a Roger Patterson film he was actually in.

Do you acknowledge as fact that Bob Heironimus has denied involvement in a Roger Patterson film that he was actually in and did so when he was a man considered a trusted friend by Bob Gimlin?

Kerchak..where is this from? Any place to read more about this?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kCU0YWXlL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ExTbEJcML._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Bigfoot came to Roger's friend's house three times. Why didn't it come to Roger's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Sorry, doesn't work. The only time Bob Heironimus has ever denied being in a Roger Patterson film was when he also denied being in a Roger Patterson film he was actually in.

Well of course it doesn't work for you- you're the one trying to do the convincing.

The question you should be asking though is who is it that you're trying to convince?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kit..thanks for the link..Roger's book? I have it but it has been a while since I've read it..what are you

referring to in it?

BTW..the World's Greatest Hoaxes did not make a very compelling case that the PGF was hoaxed. I don't

know why Romney would deny it if true. Doesn't seem to be much there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Well of course it doesn't work for you- you're the one trying to do the convincing.

You're saying that it's not relevant that Bob Heironimus denied being in a Roger Patterson film only when he denied being in a Roger Patterson film he was actually in and on top of that a trusted friend of Bob Gimlin's by Gimlin's own word. That's about as relevant as you can get.

Do you ackowldge that Bob Heironimus denied being in a Roger Patterson film he was actually in?

Kit..thanks for the link..Roger's book? I have it but it has been a while since I've read it..what are you

referring to in it?

Local Yakima sightings. Bigfoot showing up three times to Roger's friend Jerry Merritt's place is from Long's interviews with him.

BTW..the World's Greatest Hoaxes did not make a very compelling case that the PGF was hoaxed. I don't

know why Romney would deny it if true. Doesn't seem to be much there.

Romney said he thought maybe the only reason Clyde Reinke said he was in the suit was because he was nearly seven feet tall and was in an ANE film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

You're saying that it's not relevant that Bob Heironimus denied being in a Roger Patterson film only when he denied being in a Roger Patterson film he was actually in and on top of that a trusted friend of Bob Gimlin's by Gimlin's own word. That's about as relevant as you can get.

Do you ackowldge that Bob Heironimus denied being in a Roger Patterson film he was actually in?

Your idea that 'Bob was lying about a true event in South Fork, so he must have been lying about other things in the same conversation' is flawed logic.

People can lie and tell the truth in the same breath- this is no mystery. For you to try to push this concept is insulting to everyone's intelligence. Give it a rest already.

Local Yakima sightings. Bigfoot showing up three times to Roger's friend Jerry Merritt's place is from Long's interviews with him.

In one of those instances Bigfoot smiled at his wife and waved.

Another instance took place with his wife well after the PGF in 1968.

If these were Roger's doing then who wore the suit, where is that suit, and how did he get it to smile?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Your idea that 'Bob was lying about a true event in South Fork, so he must have been lying about other things in the same conversation' is flawed logic.

People can lie and tell the truth in the same breath- this is no mystery. For you to try to push this concept is insulting to everyone's intelligence. Give it a rest already.

Insulting to everone's intelligence. Easy with the shrill hypersensitivity stuff, rogue. It's not your style.

If you think it is insulting to everyone's intelligence to point out that Bob also lied when he said he wasn't in a Roger Patterson film that he was in fact in and was a trusted friend og Gimlin's when he made that denial then do you think you were insulting my intelligence here?...

Kit, do you believe that Bob Gimlin's word is reliable now?

Just like I do not see things in terms of black and white, I do not think everything that Gimlin says is false.

Do you think everything Heironimus says is false?

When I was accepting Gimlin's word saying he had to be back to work on Tuesday after Labour Day weekend in the woods with Roger you were not getting shrill about how people can lie and tell the truth in the same breath.

This is beginning to feel lilke an argument simply for the sake of argument. Let's simplify...

1) Bob and Bob were trusted friends when first approached by Greg Long in December of 1998 and they lived only nine doors from each other (and still do). Gimlin considering Heironimus a trusted friend is by his word, and yes, I accept his word about that and do understand that people can lie about some things without lying about all things.

2) Bob H lied about being involved in Roger's South Fork film when he was in fact not only involved, but one of the actual cast members.

3) Bob has never made any denials about being in the PGF outside of the first phone call and first visit by Greg Long where he was subsequently confronted about denying involvement with something he was in fact part of.

4) Bob has said that his reason for not telling the truth to Long at first was because he was covering for his friend Gimlin and that it was only when Gimlin forced him to come forward alone that they stopped being friends.

Now that being said, this thread is about discussing other candidates for the person in the PGF suit. Jerry Romney is one of the first people that should naturally be discussed in that context. Is there a reason why Romney should not be discussed within the context of this thread?

Now without devolving the discussion into who's insulting who's intelligence, we can look at the denials of Bob Heironimus and Jerry Romney and see if they are comparable. First of all, Heironimus' denial was clumsy and ineffectual. He was quite clearly hiding things about his experiences with Roger Patterson. He had a good reason. Gimlin was his friend and this was some investigator he had no idea about nor their intentions. Could Gimlin get in serious trouble? Could he be in serious trouble? The repercussions concerned him enough to consult his attorney. That there could be real trouble was not only a concern of Heironimus'. Numerous people connected to the PGF have said that Heironimus' role in the PGF was not reported for fear of people getting in trouble. Whether that could actually happen is non sequitur to the fear of it.

Romney's denial is something maintained and something done on national television while Heironimus' denial was to a single person Bob did not know. December 5th, 1998 Long first calls Bob. December 19th he visits. December 27th Long calls him again and confronts him about his false denial. The very next day Heironimus sees FOX airing World's Greatest Hoaxes with them fingering Romney and Romney denying it. This combination of events is what prompts Heironimus to go both to Bob Gimlin down the street and to his lawyer to arrange coming forward.

Heironimus' denial and Romney's denial are completely different in circumstance and context. Heironimus was not a personal friend of Patterson and Gimlin, Heironimus was. Romney was not in a Roger Patterson film, Heironimus was.

In one of those instances Bigfoot smiled at his wife and waved.

Another instance took place with his wife well after the PGF in 1968.

If these were Roger's doing then who wore the suit, where is that suit, and how did he get it to smile?

Rogue, you're distorting what Florence Showman actually reported. She said the face appeared to be partially grinning and that it extended its arm toward her. The partial grin would be the manner the mask of the suit was made that was used for that hoax that Showman said occurred in '66 or '67.

Are you seriously arguing that Bigfoot wandered into Yakima and made personal visits to the home of the person Roger went to Hollywood to get investment for his Bigfoot film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

When I was accepting Gimlin's word saying he had to be back to work on Tuesday after Labour Day weekend in the woods with Roger you were not getting shrill about how people can lie and tell the truth in the same breath.

Once again you're taking two completely irrelevant incidents and trying to mesh them together.

The whole point of Gimlin was that you were using the reliability of his words at your convenience. It's laughable when you use his word to back a claim after painting him as being a chronic liar. I was pointing out this hypocrisy.

Here you're trying to push the concept that Bob H denying the PGF in the same conversation as denying a truthful event such as South Fork somehow lends credence from one to the other. Horse squat.

There is no similarity between the two at all. Hey let's add more irrelevance and cloud the discussion even further.

This is beginning to feel lilke an argument simply for the sake of argument. Let's simplify...

Here's simplification:

Your 'Bob & Bob: bestest bosom buddies' story is only a story and irrelevant towards any other potential suspect.

Now that being said, this thread is about discussing other candidates for the person in the PGF suit. Jerry Romney is one of the first people that should naturally be discussed in that context. Is there a reason why Romney should not be discussed within the context of this thread?

Who said we shouldn't discuss Romney?

Heironimus' denial and Romney's denial are completely different in circumstance and context. Heironimus was not a personal friend of Patterson and Gimlin, Heironimus was. Romney was not in a Roger Patterson film, Heironimus was.

These points only hold significance in the context of your story, nowhere else. There is no difference between these people lying about being in the suit.

Romney should get the same beneficial perks as given to Bob H. Let's not have a double standard here.

Rogue, you're distorting what Florence Showman actually reported. She said the face appeared to be partially grinning and that it extended its arm toward her. The partial grin would be the manner the mask of the suit was made that was used for that hoax that Showman said occurred in '66 or '67.

Are you seriously arguing that Bigfoot wandered into Yakima and made personal visits to the home of the person Roger went to Hollywood to get investment for his Bigfoot film?

Not at all. I'm pointing out specifics of these incidents that you relate to Roger as being responsible for. If Roger is responsible then who was wearing the suit, where is this suit, and what's the deal with the smile? Patty didn't have a smile.

I guess Roger had a suit factory pumping out different Bigfoot suits that we don't know about? White ones, brown ones, female ones, smiling ones...keeping them well stocked before and after the PGF film..

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The whole point of Gimlin was that you were using the reliability of his words at your convenience. It's laughable when you use his word to back a claim after painting him as being a chronic liar. I was pointing out this hypocrisy.

You're insulting my intelligence, rogue! As if people are not capable of lying and telling the truth in the same sentence. Gimlin talking about his work schedule after Labor Day weekend and what he says about a Bigfoot encounter need not be treated the same. He can tell the truth about how old is he or when he works and still lie about Bigfoot.

Here you're trying to push the concept that Bob H denying the PGF in the same conversation as denying a truthful event such as South Fork somehow lends credence from one to the other. Horse squat.

Other way around. It's not that it lends credence, it's that the denial does not take away anything when he at the same time denied being in something he really was in. I don't accept the claim Romney was in the suit because he didn't make it, he denied it on national television, and he has nowhere near the level of connection to Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin and the events at Bluff Creek that Heironimus has.

Your 'Bob & Bob: bestest bosom buddies' story is only a story and irrelevant towards any other potential suspect.

Heironimus being a trusted friend of Gimlin's is not just a story according to Gimlin...

"I know Bob. He's been a friend of mine for a long time, but as far as I'm concerned, he was not there that I know of, and I don't think he was there at all. And he probably tryin' to make a buck. These guys are coming out of the wall saying the've been in a suit down in Norrthern California."

"I'd say the story Bob has come up with is pretty far-fetched as far as I'm concerned. You know, I've confronted Bob on that. I've said, 'Hey, what's going on?' But he won't talk about it. We're still friends. He just lives a little ways from me. I've worked with him and I've done things with Bob. I've rode horses with him. But this thing he's telling all the people around that he was in a suit in Northern California, it kind of just don't make sense to me."

"I used to trust Bob a lot, but then lately him and the whole family kind of prevaricates. They think things. You know, I don't make statements against my friends or neighbours, but this thing is kind of out of proportion as far as I'm concerned."

Bob Gimlin to Greg Long - September 18, 2001. MoB, p. 422

And yes, I am taking the word of someone who I am saying is a hoaxer and lying about Bluff Creek. I have done the same with Heironimus, Patterson and DeAtley. I've done it with Wallace and with Marx. I have accepted certain things they have said to be true even when I know they have lied about other things as well.

These points only hold significance in the context of your story, nowhere else. There is no difference between these people lying about being in the suit.

Romney's not lying. I never suggested he did. The thread is looking to examine alternatives to Bob Heironimus. If someone wants to do that, Jerry Romney is the first person to look at. The person that does so will need to consider how and why Clyde Reinke would be telling the truth and Jerry Romney would be lying. I personally don't consider it because Romney was being truthful, and Heironimus was lying the first time he met Greg Long because he was protecting himself and his friend Gimlin. Romney's being wrongly fingered along with Long's pressure is what made Heironimus come foreward.

Romney should get the same beneficial perks as given to Bob H. Let's not have a double standard here.

Far less. Romney has nowhere near the level of connection to P&G and Bluff creek as Heironimus does. Anyone seriously considering him will need to deal with that.

Not at all. I'm pointing out specifics of these incidents that you relate to Roger as being responsible for. If Roger is responsible then who was wearing the suit, where is this suit, and what's the deal with the smile? Patty didn't have a smile.

Florence Showman did not say the Bigfoot in her window smiled and waved at her. You twisted that out of her saying that it seemed to have a partial grin and extended its arm towards her. That can be the way the mask was and it touching the window. You make it into Harry henderson.

Do you think Merritt was hoaxed or actually visited by Bigfoot three times?

Merritt thought Roger was hoaxing him.

I guess Roger had a suit factory pumping out different Bigfoot suits that we don't know about? White ones, brown ones, female ones, smiling ones...keeping them well stocked before and after the PGF film..

I definitely think Roger used different suits for hoaxing. Some of what he used for hoaxes in Yakima was not the same as what he acquired for. Interestingly, the suit that was used for the late night hoax that provoked Merritt's dog had similar aspects to Patty, including the butt. The suit he used for the hoax Harvey Anderson testified to was not a Bigfoot suit strictly speaking and did not belong to him, but was rather rented.

Edited by BFSleuth
Rule 1A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Florence Showman did not say the Bigfoot in her window smiled and waved at her. You twisted that out of her saying that it seemed to have a partial grin and extended its arm towards her. That can be the way the mask was and it touching the window. You make it into Harry henderson.

Do you think Merritt was hoaxed or actually visited by Bigfoot three times?

Merritt thought Roger was hoaxing him.

We're not talking about real Bigfoot, we're talking about Bigfoot suits that you claim Roger was responsible for.

A partial grin is a smile- you can twist that however you like but it was prominent enough for her to notice. A Bigfoot suit with a smile on it's face- and waving at her no less.

Where did Roger come up with that one?

Sounds more like a prank a guy would pull on his ex-wife.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You said that it smiled and waved at Showman. That's rogue, not Florence. Roger can come up with an ape suit that appears to have a partial grin the same place he rented the suit he used for the hoax that Harvey Anderson recounted. It's not like this is something old ape suits did not have...

468vanhorn.jpg

You understand that the alternative is Bigfoot rolling into Yakima and visiting at least three times the same friend Roger brought with him to Hollywood to get money because of his connections.

Merritt thought Roger was hoaxing him. Do you think Merritt was hoaxed or do you think it was Bigfoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Even Morris' discount gorilla suits had what looks like a partial grin...

Morrissuit.jpg

This is what Rogue wrote of Florence Showman being hoaxed in her Yakima home...

In one of those instances Bigfoot smiled at his wife and waved.

This is what is actually from the book with her interview...

Soon I was on the phone with Florence Showman (ne Merritt). I first introduced the subject of Bigfoot. Florence confirmed Jerry's story She described how one evening she was looking through the windows of the basement door that opened onto the back yard of the Merritt's house. Staring at her was a hairy, apelike being with reddish-brown hair hanging down from its head to it shoulders. The creature was partially grinning, and one of its hairy arms was extended towards her. She let out a cry and ran upstairs and screamed for Jerry. Not long after, Patterson came over and found some tracks supposedly left by the intruder. This first incident occurred in the summer of 1966 or 1967. Her next sighting of Bigfoot was in the driveway. She pinpointed this episode to May 1968; she had just come home from surgery. - MoB, p. 131

Partially grinning, present continuous, one hairy arm extended towards her. This is not "smiled and waved", which is a distortion. The Merritts were being hoaxed and Jerry thought it was Roger doing it. This is the Roger who would have Bigfoots turning up the night before he has a book signing at a department store. This is the Roger whom Harvey Anderson reported as a hoaxer as early as 1961. This is the Roger who made Bigfoot his vocation. This is the Roger who staged phoney Ape Canyon photos and trotted out an impostor Gimlin for crowds.

Bigfoot was not coming to town in Yakima. The Merritts were being hoaxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Come on, you're just not putting enough effort into this Kit. Try harder.

I think Roger was trying to convey that it was a happy Bigfoot and just wanted to be her friend.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...