Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Kerchak

The Defenders Of Bob Heironimus.

Recommended Posts

Guest Kerchak

It's becoming increasingly clear that that the few remaining defenders of Bob Heironimus, or those that give him the benefit of the doubt, just won't go anywhere near, never mind address, his many dozens of blunders, self contradictions and physical impossibilities.

I'd like to ask Bob H's defenders why is this so? If you think he might be telling the truth why don't you try to explain and defend his many many screw ups?

Why do you completely avoid going anywhere near this mass of nonsense?

Is it a wish to 'believe' in Bob H? A 'desire' for Bob H to have been Patty, in lieu of nobody else ever been truly fingered for being Patty and therefore you excuse Bob H for everything he's ever come out with because all your eggs are firmly planted in the Bob H basket and you have zero other suspects?

Please, try and explain.

Thanks.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

Evidently no one wants to take you on .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RayG

Are his blunders and self-contradictions any better or worse than Patterson's?

And who exactly are these defenders of BobH? He certainly doesn't have my vote.

RayG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

It's becoming increasingly clear that that the few remaining defenders of Bob Heironimus, or those that give him the benefit of the doubt, just won't go anywhere near, never mind address, his many dozens of blunders, self contradictions and physical impossibilities.

I'd like to ask Bob H's defenders why is this so? If you think he might be telling the truth why don't you try to explain and defend his many many screw ups?

Why do you completely avoid going anywhere near this mass of nonsense?

Is it a wish to 'believe' in Bob H? A 'desire' for Bob H to have been Patty, in lieu of nobody else ever been truly fingered for being Patty and therefore you excuse Bob H for everything he's ever come out with because all your eggs are firmly planted in the Bob H basket and you have zero other suspects?

Please, try and explain.

Thanks.

Great idea for a thread, Kerchak! :) It puts the supporters/defenders of Bob Heironimus 'on the spot'.

Rather than them avoiding a question here or there, in a thread about Bob Heironimus, or some other PGF topic...they now have a specialized thread...about them, as 'Bob supporters'......to deal with.

And, I see the first skeptic to speak-up...RayG....immediately diverts the focus right over to Patterson/Gimlin. Gee...where have we seen that 'plan of attack' before??! ;-)

Are his blunders and self-contradictions any better or worse than Patterson's?

And who exactly are these defenders of BobH? He certainly doesn't have my vote.

RayG

Bob's are far worse, Ray....in both 'number' and 'magnitude'. And then there are all the physical comparisons.

As for who his supporters are....I know there is one guy in Japan who thinks he was Patty...and, there may be another one, or two scattered around.....the planet. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

I don't know about worse, but he seems to have contradicted himself a lot more than BobG or Roger Patterson. I find that a little suspicious. In the end, no matter how little or how greatly they contradict themselves, it won't change what was captured on Roger Patterson's camera that day.

Going back on topic, I believe BobH is someone who skeptics will put a a lot of faith into, simply because they don't agree with the conclusion of the proponents. I make this assumption based on the lack of evidence brought forth by BobH proponents themselves.

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Are his blunders and self-contradictions any better or worse than Patterson's?

Are you serious Ray?

Really? Have you not read the quotes and comments from Bob H?

He has literally DOZENS of blunders, self contradictions and physical impossibilities.

And who exactly are these defenders of BobH? He certainly doesn't have my vote.

RayG

There were two people defending Bob H only yesterday. Tontar and Interdasting, if you want particular names. They won't touch his blunders with a barge pole. At least the Patterson supporters actually answer and address 'perceived' (by the skeptics and cynics) problems with his claims and do not hide from them. Well there aren't many to address with Patterson, unlike the truckload of Bob H problems we have.

Great idea for a thread, Kerchak! :) It puts the supporters/defenders of Bob Heironimus 'on the spot'.

Rather than them avoiding a question here or there, in a thread about Bob Heironimus, or some other PGF topic...they now have a specialized thread...about them, as 'Bob supporters'......to deal with.

Yes I thought so too, seeing as they have continued to avoid answering my points.

And, I see the first skeptic to speak-up...RayG....immediately diverts the focus right over to Patterson/Gimlin. Gee...where have we seen that 'plan of attack' before??! ;-)

Yes I noticed that too. This thread is about Bob H and his supporters, yet the first skeptic wants to turn it around onto Patterson.

How typical.

If Ray G is serious about asking if Bob H's blunders are any worse than Patterson's all I can say to that is...............

3741168_o.gif

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

And, may I add... ;) ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RayG

If I may cut through the laughter and back-slapping for a moment, I don't believe I have ever given any serious thought to BobH being the subject in the film. I give it the same consideration that I would if Kerchak claimed to be the subject that day Patterson made his film. So, because I don't give any serious consideration to BobH, I have not given his claims or statements the same attention as I have the man who claims to have filmed a bigfoot that day. Claims that contain their own huge blunders.

But, since I'm NOT a defender of BobH, I shall say no more and bow out of this thread.

RayG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

The Defenders Of Bob Heironimus...sum up "bigfoot skepticism."

As it's pretty obvious - the most obvious thing in this field, except the most evidence for anything remaining unproven by science - that Patterson was incapable of faking Patty, and that it's even more unlikely that he was faked, only one question even involving Patterson is live at this point:

What's on that film?

(Not Robert. We KNOW that.)

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

If I may cut through the laughter and back-slapping for a moment, I don't believe I have ever given any serious thought to BobH being the subject in the film. I give it the same consideration that I would if Kerchak claimed to be the subject that day Patterson made his film.

Off topic, but can I ask why you don't question and argue against the whole Bob H claim.? Can I ask why you weren't an opponent to Kitakaze's claims? I never saw you argue against him at all.

Why did your imbued skepisicm never seem to run in the direction of the Bob H supporters? Why, Ray? You seem to leave their claptrap alone. Why was that? Why did you never tackle these 'warts in the hide' of bigfootery? Hmmmmm?

Edited by Kerchak
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

"This just in".... :popcorn: ...

ChurchLady2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RayG

Off topic, but can I ask why you don't question and argue against the whole Bob H claim.? Can I ask why you weren't an opponent to Kitakaze's claims? I never saw you argue against him at all.

Why did your imbued skepisicm never seem to run in the direction of the Bob H supporters? Why, Ray? You seem to leave their claptrap alone. Why was that? Why did you never tackle these 'warts in the hide' of bigfootery? Hmmmmm?

I know I said I'd bow out of the thread, but since you asked me something specifically....

You don't see me argue against Bill Munns anymore do you? Know why? Because I don't think, no matter how time and effort he invests, that he can prove anything about that film. Nor can Kit, or Sweaty, or anyone else who wastes their time arguing about it. It's pretty much the same reason I don't argue against BobH supporters -- I don't think they or BobH can bring anything of any sustenance to the argument. Let Sweaty and Kit go at it all day/month/year long if they wish, neither is going to solve the mystery, because they're fighting over the film. I don't think the resolution to the mystery lies in that film, which I think can neither be proven nor disproven.

I am pretty sure that I replied to Kit here on the forum saying that unless he produced THE suit or a body, he was just wasting bandwidth. (or words to that effect)

I'm also pretty sure I spoke up when Kit mentioned BobH taking a polygraph... yeah, I sure did, it's right here.

I suggest you check posts #84-87 in that same thread. I'm certainly not giving Kit any doubt as to what my thought are concerning THAT wart in the hide of bigfootery.

I had another disagreement with Kit here, but it wasn't really a knock down drag out fight or anything.

I can assure you I don't have BobH or his claims placed on a pedestal.

RayG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You guys are not still arguing against Pattybob are you? Come on, Chico was there, the bent stirrup, the scratch on his mothers car, it all just add's up. He put on the suit, it was heavy, hot, he could not see well, it had built in waders, and over sized feet, and strode confidently, powerfully, and athletically across loose unstable substrate,then want to the bar and told everyone. You saw how he demonstrated the compliant gate right? Seriously, his story has to be true, there is no Bigfoot, just an army of hoaxers, all across the country, wearing large furry suits and leaving footprints. Hell, there was just someone with really big feet running barefoot in the snow here just the other day. It happens all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Ray, that's small potatoes considering the YEARS Kitakaze was infesting/holding sway over BFF and JREF (boards you are a member of) with his "Bob H was Patty" claims. I never really saw you go at it with Kitakaze the way you go at it with many bigfoot proponents. Kitakaze and his "Bob H was Patty" stuff is as detrimental to bigfootery as the tall tales and wild claims supporting bigfoot are. It's just as much falsity going on. Probably even worse because genuine people are looked down on as liars and hoaxers if we listen to Kitakaze and the other supporters of Bob H.

But anyway, it was just a question and you answered it so thanks for that. As you aren't a supporter of Bob H, that's fair enough.

I see none of them have come into this thread to answer why they don't go anywhere near his dozens of blunders.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Actually I should not make lite of it all. Those who supported Bob H in the past, where supporting a hoax and a fraud, and I believe most of them knowingly did so. These people who are so called skeptics, or critical thinkers only speak out when it suits them, not objectively. How often do we see proponents step up and apply critical thinking to many of the claims we see here? But when someone is speaking out against the existence of Bigfoot, no matter how outlandish, or incredible the claim, Bob H being the perfect example, suddenly these great critical minds of science are either supportive of this particular kind of woo, or they simply stay quiet to see what will stick. We see a lot of throw and stick method being employed by this internet self proclaimed critical thinkers, and all they really do is erode at the validity of subject as whole, and perpetuate the cloud of ridicule surrounding the subject. People like Bob H, and his supporters, are more fraudulent, and are as much a hoaxer as any claimed by the so called "skeptical" camp. The "critical" thinkers that sit back, and refuse to apply their "critical" thinking to both sides of the debate are not critical thinkers, they are faith based, non critical thinkers.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...