Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Kerchak

The Defenders Of Bob Heironimus.

Recommended Posts

Guest Kerchak

^

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'.

Bloody hilarious isn't it....even after they've tried to DEFEND him.

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:

But they'll defend/support Bob H far more than they'll ever defend/support Roger Patterson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John

But you still give him the benefit of the doubt, clearly. Or at least think it's possible he was telling the truth, don't you? Or am I wrong here?

One-more-time at your request - if this is the wrong thread - tough.

Without going into specific questions (perhaps that's a cop-out please see later) - I do NOT give him 'the benefit of the doubt'. I don't know how to make this any clearer. I've read his claims on and off over the years and like many aspects of this phenomenon there clearly appear to be problems with the story (and I'm wording it like that because I hate downright calling someone a liar outright - that's not the benefit of the doubt). Likewise there are some intriguing aspects to the story in my opinion.

To be frank, one way or another I really don't care. I'm not desperate for Bob to be 'the-man-in-the-suit' and I've seen no evidence to convince me remotely that it's the case. I'm just not really that interested. It doesn't matter to me one little bit. I can't be bothered to dissect every word and comment made on either side of the story. It's not going to lead anywhere. I can't be bothered to waste my time.

So what if the sand in Bluff Creek is bright green and Bob says it was sky blue? He would be wrong and then.....? Of course it casts doubt on his claims. And....? I know it's been common practice in some circles to demonise the man and play that aspect to the crowd. It's been going on for years. I'm not interested. It's boring and I'm not going to fry another brain-cell thinking about it.

I'm not going to agree 100% that Bob is a total fraud, nor am I going to conclude 100% the film is a fake. I don't care. This may sound weird, but I think if it could be proved that Bob WAS the man in the suit it would be a step forward. But I'm not sufficiently interested to even consider attempting to do so.

Concluding him NOT to be the-man-in-the-suit seems a bit a*se backwards to me. I can list a whole lot of things that Bigfoot isn't without much effort. Going through mental gymnastics, arguing the toss and getting all indignant to add another one seems.... well daft. But then I don't care.

If that's benefit of the doubt or support well I'm sorry. Personally I don't give a monkey's. It's trivial.

Of far more importance to me at present is how to build a CG model of a recurved hollow-ground blade without resorting to mathematics and engineering style solutions which I suck at. Any ideas? 'Cus that's where I'm going the minute I've posted this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

For me personally, I am uncomfortable with saying that I am 100% certain about anything. That path can lead to self delusion and confirmation bias. Even when I do feel like I'm pretty sure about something I always try to keep open the possible that I might have missed something or interpreted some data point incorrectly. This is especially true when dealing with phenomena that are associated with human agency. People do weird things and behave irrationally all the time. It's makes it nearly impossible to try and quantify human behavior in any meaningful sense using a predictive model. So statements like "So-and-so lied about this so he must have also lied about that" or "why would whathisname create this hoax when he had nothing to gain by it?" really don't hold a lot of weight for me.

So no, I don't 100% eliminate the possibility that Bob H. could have been Patty, despite the fact that he is clearly an unreliable witness who seems to change his story to suit his audience. It could mean that he's just making everything up whole-cloth or he could just be a guy who tends to embellish his tales to make them sound better. He does seem to strike me as the raconteur type. Morris on the other hand strikes me as the huckster type who jumped in because he saw an opportunity to a make a buck and promote his business. These are just gut feelings of course and mean nothing in an empirical sense.

Now Bob H. clearly changed his story at that point to make his description of the costume to fit what Morris was saying. That could be because he's made the whole thing up or it could be that he was the guy in the suit but believed Morris over his own vague memories when it came to details---i.e. he could have been thinking, "I don't remember a zipper, but if this guy is the one who sold Roger the suit and he says there was a zipper, then I guess there must have been." Either of these is a possibility.

I'm sure someone has probably pointed this out before, but there is another possibility and that's that Bob H. did wear a BF suit for Roger, but not for the Patty film. Roger was making a BF documentary and we know that Bob H. was in it, so it could have been that Roger got a suit and had Bob H. wear it for a reinactment (maybe it was even a rented Morris suit). This would explain a lot of things actually and I think it should considered a possibility, even if it's a remote one.

So really there are several possibilities with Bob H.

1. He's lying about everything

2. He was the guy in the suit, but he's embellished the story.

3. He did wear a suit for RP but it wasn't Patty.

So no, I don't 100% eliminate Bob H. yet, though I'm open to whatever there evidence there is. Kerchak you mentioned that Bob H. was never in Northern California. What is your evidence for that? If that is sound then it could be the best way to eliminate Bob H. from consideration.

But like John, I think Bob H. has been overblown. If the PGF is a hoax, then it could be anybody in the suit. It doesn't have to be Bob H. The only reason we're wasting time on him is made the claim and it needs to be tested.

I've tried to dissect the Bob story as objectively as I can and I don't feel comfortable completely eliminating him from consideration despite his contradictions. But I also don't think it matters much to the overall question of the veracity of the film. If that makes me a Bob H. defender in your minds then so be it.

Edited by Theagenes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

For me personally, I am uncomfortable with saying that I am 100% certain about anything. That path can lead to self delusion and confirmation bias.

Seriously? If you paint your front room royal blue, you wouldn't be comfortable saying you are certain you have painted your front room royal blue?

Ok.

So no, I don't 100% eliminate the possibility that Bob H.

I do and so do many others. He just wasn't Patty.

despite the fact that he is clearly an unreliable witness who seems to change his story to suit his audience. It could mean that he's just making everything up whole-cloth or he could just be a guy who tends to embellish his tales to make them sound better.

I don't know why it would be better to say the sand was snowy white or that the creek was dry. If he had really been there he wouldn't have said any such thing. He is 100% most definitely going by what he 'thinks' he saw when he watched the PGF on the t.v and not from any real personal experience.

.

I'm sure someone has probably pointed this out before, but there is another possibility and that's that Bob H. did wear a BF suit for Roger, but not for the Patty film. Roger was making a BF documentary and we know that Bob H. was in it, so it could have been that Roger got a suit and had Bob H. wear it for a reinactment (maybe it was even a rented Morris suit). This would explain a lot of things actually and I think it should considered a possibility, even if it's a remote one.

Yes this theory has been discussed before. This would explain why Bob Heironimus did not tell the truth and tried to hide his involvement in knowing and working with Roger Patterson during Patterson's May 1967 movie attempt where Bob H played a cowboy on the hunt for bigfoot. It is feasible that Bob H was asked to wear a cheap bigfoot suit for Roger's (later abandoned) movie.

So no, I don't 100% eliminate Bob H.

Let's see.

1. Bob H didn't tell the truth about when he first met and worked with Roger Patterson regarding bigfoot.

2. Bob H can't describe the 'suit' consistently and he majorly changes his descriptions depending on who he is talking to.

3. Bob H is not the right height nor size and shape to have been Patty, even with padding and extensions, based on his descriptions of 'the suit'.

4. Bob H didn't know how to get to Bluff Creek and got all the physical descriptions of the film site utterly wrong.

5. Bob H describes a filming technique by Patterson which is totally at odds to what the film itself shows.

6. Bob H can't make up his mind what he did after the filming.

7. Bob H changes his story about when the film was shot and developed.

8. Bob H can't make up his mind if he saw P and G come and take the suit away or he didn't see them come and take the suit away.

9. Bob H can't make up his mind if he and his mother Opal never ever discussed the reason for him having 'the suit' in the back of the car or if she was watching the PGF on t.v one day and she asked him if that was him in the suit.

10. Bob H repeatedly in many interviews changes his claims whenever somebody questions him and brings up new points unbeknown to him previously. He does this often to try and 'fit in' with these new points.

That's just the top 10 basic ones. There are more.

I fail to see why anyone would still give this teller of tall takes any benefit of the doubt whatsoever. Even if I had my suspicions the PGF was fake I wouldn't touch the Bob Heironimus claim with a barge pole.

yet, though I'm open to whatever there evidence there is. Kerchak you mentioned that Bob H. was never in Northern California. What is your evidence for that?

I said there is no serious evidence to indicate Bob Heironimus ever was in Northern California in 1967 and I said that judging by all his incorrect and impossible claims about Bluff Creek, he has never been there (to Bluff Creek at the film site) in his life. Nobody who has would get it so wrong.

I've tried to dissect the Bob story as objectively as I can and I don't feel comfortable completely eliminating him from consideration despite his contradictions.

Wow, just wow. What on earth more do you need? He can't even fit into Patty's head for goodness sake.

But I also don't think it matters much to the overall question of the veracity of the film. If that makes me a Bob H. defender in your minds then so be it.

Yes, so be it. Indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Here's the way I look at the whole thing.

100% certainty? OK. A bigfoot proponent, Leila Hadj-Chikh, calls a fact "something we believe we know for sure." I "know" the sun is a star, but that is relying on what others have told me. I'm presuming that color in my room is royal blue because, well, that's what people have told me it is. I painted with it because I liked it, not because I am an international color authority.

Bob Hieronymous isn't Patty. I'm comfortable with that. Based on the overall evidence I would bet bigfoot is real if I ever had to bet (a smart bet always follows the evidence). But I wouldn't bet a whole lot of money on the provenance of P/G, which is only one piece of evidence after all.

I'd bet dinner at an expensive restaurant, though, that Patty's authentic. Which rules out Bob as Patty. That's how sure I am, and I don't need to be more sure than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

Kerchak, would you feel better if I said I was 85% sure or 90% sure it's not Bob H.? That would probably be about right.

You seemed to be obsessing over making sure everyone completely disavows Bob H. and anyone who doesn't do so is a "Bob H. Defender." It's a little extreme. I just don't see it as such a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

One-more-time at your request - if this is the wrong thread - tough.

Without going into specific questions (perhaps that's a cop-out please see later) - I do NOT give him 'the benefit of the doubt'. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

But you wrote in the other thread "I can't agree that we can write off Bob 100%.""

So that, to me, implied you still think it is possible Bob H was Patty and are still giving his claim some manner of support, even if it's a small amount.

I've read his claims on and off over the years and like many aspects of this phenomenon there clearly appear to be problems with the story (and I'm wording it like that because I hate downright calling someone a liar outright - that's not the benefit of the doubt). Likewise there are some intriguing aspects to the story in my opinion.

There you go then.

To be frank, one way or another I really don't care. I'm not desperate for Bob to be 'the-man-in-the-suit' and I've seen no evidence to convince me remotely that it's the case. I'm just not really that interested. It doesn't matter to me one little bit. I can't be bothered to dissect every word and comment made on either side of the story. It's not going to lead anywhere. I can't be bothered to waste my time.

Fair enough then. That's your position cleared.

So what if the sand in Bluff Creek is bright green and Bob says it was sky blue? He would be wrong and then.....?

In isolation it doesn't mean much. Added to everything else he claims which is also wrong then it actually means a great deal.

I know it's been common practice in some circles to demonise the man and play that aspect to the crowd.

If you are referring to me then I would object to the word 'demonising'. I have never mentioned anything about his personality or even his life away from the context of the PGF. All I have ever done is to highlight and bring attention towards his many flubs, self contradictions and physical impossibilities regarding solely his claim of being Patty and nothing else. I couldn't care less about the 'man' away from the PGF.

Concluding him NOT to be the-man-in-the-suit seems a bit a*se backwards to me.

No it's not. It's actually quite relevant. If the only suspect is eliminated then that leaves...............nobody else as a suspect.

If you're not really interested then that's fine. In which case I have no idea why how any of this discussion/disagreement started.

Kerchak, would you feel better if I said I was 85% sure or 90% sure it's not Bob H.? That would probably be about right.

Hehe it wouldn't make me feel any better or any worse.

If you still feel there is a possibility that Bob H might have been Patty, however small that possibility might be, that still makes you eligible for this thread. Remember, I expanded it to include not just his out and out 'defenders' but also those who still give him the benefit of the doubt or feel there is a possibility he may be telling the truth.

You seemed to be obsessing over making sure everyone completely disavows Bob H. and anyone who doesn't do so is a "Bob H. Defender." It's a little extreme. I just don't see it as such a big deal.

And I don't see the big deal in trying not to be lumped into the bracket of being a Bob H defender or one who gives his claim some possibility. If that's how you really feel then go for it and engage me on the thread topic. The point of this thread was to try and get, for once, those people who defend him/think it's possible he is telling the truth to address his flubs, self contradictions and physical impossibilities. So far these people back a mile away from doing so. They will defend Bob when it suits them but won't defend him when it doesn't.

But like John, I think Bob H. has been overblown.

And yet talk of Bob H seems to be in almost every flippin' thread here, from the Munns Report to the Kitakaze suit bombshell thread to many points in between.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

I guess "defender" and "giving him the benefit of the doubt" just seem to be too strong to describe my feelings on him. "Haven't completely eliminated the idea that there may be a kernal of truth to his tale buried somewher in the contradictions" would probably be a better fit.

I haven't been convinced that he couldn't physically be Patty, though I've seen a number of attempts here. I think that's the right approach though---try to come up with some empirical evidence that it couldn't be him. So far the methodology has been flawed, unfortunately.

But even if you prove empirically that it wasn't Bob H. what difference does that make? Again, if it's a hoax it could anybody in a suit.

Bob H. is only useful for proving that the PGF is a hoax, not the other way around. If his story is true then the PGF is a hoax; if it's not true then the PGF could still be either a hoax or real. Once you reach the point where you can't be sure if his story is true (and I think nearly everybody is at that point) then he ceases to become a useful data point and there's no need to go any further. Trying to go further and prove that his story is absolutely false doesn't really add anything to the discussion either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

I'm not following. Trying to go further and prove that his story is false doesn't add anything to the discussion either way? If the only man fingered for being Patty is ruled out that doesn't mean anything? Yes it does. It means the suit guys are back to square one, they have nobody to cling to and that everything a number of them have argued about since 2004 has meant nothing at all.

Bill Munns is even trying to see practically how Bob H's descriptions of 'the suit' can possibly work. Are you saying that if/when Bill Munns finds that Bob H's descriptions of the suit can't work practically then it is not adding anything to the subject at all?

I disagree.................completely. It ends the claim of the only man suspected of being Patty. That's a good thing, of considerable benefit.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

It eliminates this one guy as the man in the suit, and since the claim is out there it needs to be addressed, but once that's done we're all back at square one. It could still be real or fake. Proving Bob H.'s claim is false doesn't help prove that the PGF is real, it only prevents it from being proven false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

^

And that's of benefit.......because some people think it has been proven false and that Bob H was the guy in the suit. Didn't you even allude to that common thought process elsewhere in another thread or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There has only ever been one claim to the "man in the suit", and that was Bob H. He became such a sensation with this false claim that he enjoyed a certain amount of celebrity status over it all. There where a lot of supporters of that claim who are now strangely silent, and refuse to step up and attempt to defend their support at the time. I believe Kerchak's entire point here, is once you take that away, once you have clearly demonstrated that Bob H was not the man in the suit, the whole suit argument takes a major hit. This is important to the over all examination of the topic, because Bob H's claim is central to the argument its where it all began, and the basis of so many of the original points of argument made by the so called skeptics. To back pedal now, and make a generalization of it was "someone" in a suit, is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed, is Bob H's claim, the only claim ever made, that they where the person in the suit. I think that has clearly been debunked, Bob H is a hoaxer, and those who argued in support of his claim, need to understand that they supported, and helped perpetuate that hoax, and it has done nothing to assist in the solving of this mystery, instead it has just clouded it more, and contributed to over all false belief. I have stated before that the PGF had no influence on my desire to understand what Bigfoot is, because I spent years believing it was a hoax because of my limited exposure to the topic, and the fact that I was led to believe that the Bob H claim was indeed fact. After seeing all the discussion here, all the comparisons, I lean much more to the Patty is real camp, and I even somewhat resent the fact that for so many years I was taken in by Bob H, and his supporters hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

^

And that's of benefit.......because some people think it has been proven false and that Bob H was the guy in the suit. Didn't you even allude to that common thought process elsewhere in another thread or something?

Well, that's a good point. It does matter for the general public's perception of the situation. I was responding to Evil Ken's suggestion for TV debate between the two Bob's.

There has only ever been one claim to the "man in the suit", and that was Bob H. He became such a sensation with this false claim that he enjoyed a certain amount of celebrity status over it all. There where a lot of supporters of that claim who are now strangely silent, and refuse to step up and attempt to defend their support at the time. I believe Kerchak's entire point here, is once you take that away, once you have clearly demonstrated that Bob H was not the man in the suit, the whole suit argument takes a major hit. This is important to the over all examination of the topic, because Bob H's claim is central to the argument its where it all began, and the basis of so many of the original points of argument made by the so called skeptics. To back pedal now, and make a generalization of it was "someone" in a suit, is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed, is Bob H's claim, the only claim ever made, that they where the person in the suit. I think that has clearly been debunked, Bob H is a hoaxer, and those who argued in support of his claim, need to understand that they supported, and helped perpetuate that hoax, and it has done nothing to assist in the solving of this mystery, instead it has just clouded it more, and contributed to over all false belief. I have stated before that the PGF had no influence on my desire to understand what Bigfoot is, because I spent years believing it was a hoax because of my limited exposure to the topic, and the fact that I was led to believe that the Bob H claim was indeed fact. After seeing all the discussion here, all the comparisons, I lean much more to the Patty is real camp, and I even somewhat resent the fact that for so many years I was taken in by Bob H, and his supporters hoax.

I guess that's why the Bob H situation means so little to me. I never really gave it much credence at the time because I was under the (false) impression that he was just one of several people claiming to have been the guy in the suit. So his claims were never that important to me in forming my (ever-shifting) opinion of the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

I have a question. Has Bob Gimlin ever directly commented on Bob H's claims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Yes. Gimlin said early on that what Heironimus said was not true and re-affirmed that nobody wore any suit there etc etc.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...