Jump to content

The Defenders Of Bob Heironimus.


Guest Kerchak

Recommended Posts

Guest Kerchak

Plussed for that. Very well said, especially this bit:

""The "critical" thinkers that sit back, and refuse to apply their "critical" thinking to both sides of the debate are not critical thinkers""

Correct. They really aren't. They are just bigfoot detractors and no more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not even sure they are Bigfoot detractors Kerchak, I think they are more addicted to the argument, rather than the topic. They play the topic like its a point system or something, obviously not interested in the topic over all, just in the "chess" game of the argument. These folks do nothing to further the cause of truth, and would be far better suited to find another forum to display their brand of critical thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I am not even sure they are Bigfoot detractors Kerchak, I think they are more addicted to the argument, rather than the topic.

They play the topic like its a point system or something, obviously not interested in the topic over all, just in the "chess" game of the argument. These folks do nothing to further the cause of truth, and would be far better suited to find another forum to display their brand of critical thinking.

I agree with you, John... :) ....but I don't think that these 'Bigfoot scoftics' should be encouraged to leave the BFF. I think the best way to deal with their scofticism is to simply Ignore them...rather than engaging them in pointless, going-nowhere exchanges.

It takes two to carry on an argument.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to see Tontar post one of his lengthy rants....and, then see nobody respond to it?! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the do not respond to them, there are several on here I do not respond to, and others that I just barely pay attention to. If something is presented, and is so obviously antagonistic, flawed, or biased, I try not to give it any legitamcy by getting to involved with it. Not that I am so vain as believe I have any real answers my own personal theories on it all are constantly evolving, as I take more and more information into consideration. I think the most annoying part of the debate, is when you see something posted, that is messed up, that you know the poster does not believe it themselves, but they post anyway, because its not about proving or disproving anything, or discovering anything,its probably not even reflective of their personal beliefs, its nothing more than points, causing damage to the perceived opponents position. I personally do not understand the motivation for this type of thing.

As for Tontar, I like the guy, I really do. However in all honesty Yeti, I do not believe I have never read one of his entire rants. I scan a quick look through some of them, try to get the gist, but I just don't have the patience to read the whole things lol............shhhh...don't tell him.......(besides, he is a believer in denial just my opinion)

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

I remember many years ago when the Bob Heironimus' "confession" first came out. There's something about "a confession" involving an extraordinary event that makes almost everyone who is seeking the truth, at least consider it. I'd have to say that BH's confession has been thoroughly considered by now at that with an understanding of each bit of information, his stories are less and less likely to have anything to do with the film. It's the same with Morris. If things went down the way they claim (after one decides which version of their "confessions" to consider) then I think they would seem a lot more like actual participants in the event and a lot less like side-line glory seekers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've overestimated Kerchak the degree to which bigfoot skeptics agree that Bob H was wearing the Patty suit at Bluff Creek. From what Kitakaze and others have investigated into the PGF, I am willing to consider Bob H to be a provisional "suspect" to have worn the suit, but I am no more convinced than RayG is that that's the case. I was always skeptical of the Morris connection too. I think Roger may have obtained a Morris suit to "reverse-engineer" features that helped him craft a suit of his own, but that's clearly not an off-the-rack Morris we see in the PGF.

The PGF is a world of its own, and one cannot claim any meaningful expertise in arguing it either way without applying some skills in investigative journalism, pop culture history, psychology, photogrammetry, and movie special effects. I lack training in all of those areas, so I rarely participate in threads related to the PGF. My training as a wildlife ecologist tells me I'm looking at a dude in a suit when I view that film, but I've long been on record here that I an unable to hang my hat on anything solid enough that I could prove that to anyone else. Short of something like a Gimlin "confession" and display of the suit, I too, consider the PGF to be an enduring mystery that will always have its proponents and detractors.

Note that I do find it to be a huge distraction for bigfootery: Because I see it as an obvious hoax, anything that uses it to promote a supposedly scientific analysis (e.g., Meldrum's ichnotaxonomy paper) is practically wrapped in flowing red flags. The case for bigfoot does need the PGF, and the PGF perhaps more often than not weakens that case instead of augmenting it.

Just one guy's opinion here. In short, I will not be providing a detailed defense of Bob H as Patty because I'm not convinced that he was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^Well this is why I dismissed Bob H with one short post.

I don't think the sasquatch case requires P/G either. I personally think it helps, in the same way that any single sighting report that appears consistent with others does. Maybe to me P/G counts for a number of sighting reports, if we're talking equivalency. How many? Shoot, got me. But if P/G were confirmed fake tomorrow, my position on the overall evidence wouldn't change.

Anyone's opinion on it is their opinion. But the analysis of P/G is done. Nothing more of use can come of it. It's probable from my read of the evidence that the film will be ratified as a sasquatch when the animal is confirmed. But until then, nothing more can be done with it.

Except arguments like the ones here, whatever purpose they're serving. One purpose they could serve, though: getting intrigued youngsters interested in the field, which isn't a bad thing.

Edited by DWA
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Saskeptic wrote:

I was always skeptical of the Morris connection too.

I think Roger may have obtained a Morris suit to "reverse-engineer" features that helped him craft a suit of his own, but that's clearly not an off-the-rack Morris we see in the PGF.

Patty is definitely, beyond all doubt, not a Morris suit....in any way, shape or form....and neither is Patty the result of Roger using a Morris suit as a guide.

The timeline is flat-out impossible. If Roger bought a Morris suit...it would have been in August of '67....and that only leaves about 9 weeks, maximum...from when he bought the suit, until he filmed Patty.

That amount of time is insufficient for an amateur such as Roger to have performed a total transformation of the suit...or, to have used it as a guide, in making a 'Patty suit' from scratch.

At some point, I think I'll start a thread devoted to listing, and showing, all of the differences between Patty and a Morris suit. There are....many. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Still no show I see??

Here is a little entertainment, Kerchak... :) .....while the 'Defenders of Fort Heironimus' are....silent...

I agree with the do not respond to them, there are several on here I do not respond to, and others that I just barely pay attention to. If something is presented, and is so obviously antagonistic, flawed, or biased, I try not to give it any legitamcy by getting too involved with it. Not that I am so vain as believe I have any real answers my own personal theories on it all are constantly evolving, as I take more and more information into consideration. I think the most annoying part of the debate, is when you see something posted, that is messed up, that you know the poster does not believe it themselves, but they post anyway, because its not about proving or disproving anything, or discovering anything,its probably not even reflective of their personal beliefs, its nothing more than points, causing damage to the perceived opponents position.

I personally do not understand the motivation for this type of thing.

I agree with everything you wrote, John. :) I don't have any interest, myself, in discussing the evidence with the extreme skeptics...(a.k.a....'scoftics'). AFAIC....people who give Bigfoot's existence a near-0% probability have very little to offer, in the way of legitimate analysis. To them....everything indicates a 'suit'.

One quick example, of worthless analysis by a "skeptic".....Tontar just recently referred to the 'apparent mouth movement' on Patty as 'imaginary'. I am a bit baffled, as to how he could know that the 'apparent movement' of Patty's jaw/lips is not 'real movement'???

How did he determine that??

As for Tontar, I like the guy, I really do. However in all honesty Yeti, I do not believe I have never read one of his entire rants. I scan a quick look through some of them, try to get the gist, but I just don't have the patience to read the whole things lol............shhhh...don't tell him.......(besides, he is a believer in denial just my opinion)

Congrats, John!! :fan: Keep up the good work!

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

I think you've overestimated Kerchak the degree to which bigfoot skeptics agree that Bob H was wearing the Patty suit at Bluff Creek.

Well I was responding to a couple of them who were only recently defending Bob H or giving him the benefit of the doubt. I've already name checked them in this thread.

From what Kitakaze and others have investigated into the PGF, I am willing to consider Bob H to be a provisional "suspect" to have worn the suit, but I am no more convinced than RayG is that that's the case.

It can 100% be established that he wasn't Patty and has never been to Bluff Creek. His own 'testimony' rules himself out, as do the physical proportions. I cannot fathom why anyone can even give Bob H the benefit of the doubt, unless they have a "desire to believe it was somebody in a suit" and seeing as Bob H is the only name that has ever seriously come up then..................?

Just one guy's opinion here. In short, I will not be providing a detailed defence of Bob H as Patty because I'm not convinced that he was.

To be honest. you did not spring to mind when I started this thread asking for Bob Hs defenders to address his many many blunders. Not at all. I get the impression you are just not all that interested in the PGF either way.

If Roger bought a Morris suit...it would have been in August of '67....and that only leaves about 9 weeks, maximum...from when he bought the suit, until he filmed Patty.

The whole Morris thing is a red herring from a confirmed publicity seeker. I don't have the opinion Patterson ever bought a Morris suit. Morris 'claims' as soon as he saw the PGF on t.v in 1967 he 'knew' that was his suit.........yet he didn't keep the receipt/bill of sale? Any business would still have the records of a transaction just a few months before and seeing his own suit on t.v would have been of great importance for Morris, especially as the claim from Patterson was that he filmed a genuine sasquatch. The receipt would have been kept by Morris..................yet there is no receipt. Morris is full of hot air. He even once claimed the Memorial Day footage was one of his suits too. Oh boy!!!

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

I cannot fathom why anyone can even give Bob H the benefit of the doubt, unless they have a "desire to believe it was somebody in a suit"

Yup, they probably do and they often accuse us of being the ones who have a desire to believe. :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Ok, just to be clear, this thread isn't just about the Bob H supporters but also those who still give him the benefit of the doubt and feel there is a possibility he may be telling the truth.

What are you thoughts on Bob H claiming that Roger Patterson filmed him from his horse deliberately shaking the camera? What are your thoughts on Bob H claiming the creek was dry with snow white sand all around and that it was all done in one take with no practice run throughs, no alternate angles, no alternate distances etc etc?

On what do you base your opinion that Bob H might be telling the truth here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

It's pretty laughable, Kerchak....Bob Heironimus doesn't have any skeptic 'supporters', on this Forum.....yet, neither does he have any skeptic 'detractors'......instead, they all seem to be 'Heironimus Agnostics'.

Skeptic 'Party Line'...

"Maybe he was Patty, maybe he wasn't...I don't know....I can't tell....it's Highly Indeterminable.......I wouldn't say 'Yes', but I couldn't say 'No'!" :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...