Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

Backdoc wrote:


 

(Why is there no Bob Heronimus report?)

 

 

 

Who says there isn't?!   :)   The Official 'Heironimus Report'...

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

 

Lolly-Bob1_zpsa979fc49.gif

 

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
You defined skepticism.  Thank you.  You are now a skeptic.

 

You appear to not even know the difference between the two terms. In this case, skepticism is a doubting or questioning

attitude involving evidence which has yet been investigated and tested whereas a skeptic is a person who habitually holds a universal doubt regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

 

In other words - apparently a non-skeptic person can see that there is a difference between the application of skepticism to a problem without actually being a skeptic - your response demonstrates that a skeptic cannot differentiate the two.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Backdoc wrote:

 

(Why is there no Bob Heronimus report?)

 

 

 

Who says there isn't?!   :)   The Official 'Heironimus Report'...

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

 

**Image Removed**

 

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... :lol:

 

 

Love it.  If only he would use a Glass Eye I would be suddenly convinced.  You know, just looking at this, you would have to ask yourself why would you take this out to bluff creek and film your hoax and just before put onto this somehow a Single Glass Eye.  This defies reason and logic.  What reasonable purpose could that serve?  I mean, you went to all the trouble to make this suit. you went to all the other trouble involved.  This fact alone should be a glaring as a Rocket on the 4th of July.

 

Backdoc

Edited by BigGinger
To Remove Quoted Image
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
Love it.  If only he would use a Glass Eye I would be suddenly convinced. 

 

There aren't even any photos showing Bob H whereas his glass eye is reflecting sunlight and its not shaded by a heavy protruding brow ridge. I am astonished to think some people were so gullible to accept that jokers fly by the seat of his pants claims so willingly. I guess that is just another example of utilizing skepticism as an investigative tool and just being a skeptic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... I guess that is just another example of utilizing skepticism as an investigative tool and just being a skeptic.

 

 

I didn't think you really knew what skepticism is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

 

Love it.  If only he would use a Glass Eye I would be suddenly convinced. 

 

There aren't even any photos showing Bob H whereas his glass eye is reflecting sunlight and its not shaded by a heavy protruding brow ridge. I am astonished to think some people were so gullible to accept that jokers fly by the seat of his pants claims so willingly. I guess that is just another example of utilizing skepticism as an investigative tool and just being a skeptic.

 

 

The Glass Eye issue is huge in that it point to a willingness of the witness to change his story at a moments notice.  Anything from the color of the soil white as snow (it was grey) to the Glass eye thing and so on.   That suit must be made of playdough since one time it has suspenders and other times it is made of horse hair.  Sometimes he even has a football helmet on.  Where is that football helmet under this mask he is holding by the way?

 

If you claimed to be the shooter in who shot Kennedy, I would think they might want to ask you hard Q's and make you prove a few things.  Has your story changed a lot, can you shoot a gun, what evidence shows you were in Delay Plaza that day?

 

Why have the Bob H followers not asked the hard Q-- with the main point this:  His story keeps changing and changing and changing.

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

... I guess that is just another example of utilizing skepticism as an investigative tool and just being a skeptic.

 

 

I didn't think you really knew what skepticism is.

 

 

One of us obviously didn't appear to know what it meant.

 

Ace!, on 11 Jul 2013 - 9:44 PM, said:snapback.png

"You defined skepticism.  Thank you.  You are now a skeptic"

 

 

.
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

"Why have the Bob H followers not asked the hard Q-- with the main point this:  His story keeps changing and changing and changing."

 

Backdoc

 

That's an excellent question, Bd.  If I'm a human dressed up to be Patty on PGf day and, decades later, I decide to 'spill all the beans'; I'm not saying anything like the self-contradicting BS from Bob H.  I might say I don't remember everything verbatim but; if anyone was a human dressed up to be Patty then they would never be their own worst enemy in terms of proof.  That's just not happening. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

"Why have the Bob H followers not asked the hard Q-- with the main point this:  His story keeps changing and changing and changing."

 

Backdoc

 

That's an excellent question, Bd.  If I'm a human dressed up to be Patty on PGf day and, decades later, I decide to 'spill all the beans'; I'm not saying anything like the self-contradicting BS from Bob H.  I might say I don't remember everything verbatim but; if anyone was a human dressed up to be Patty then they would never be their own worst enemy in terms of proof.  That's just not happening. 

 

Xspider,

 

Many times when someone spills the beans-- John Dean in Watergate or 'Magicians Secrets Revealed' or whatever, every major detail points us to a further understanding.  After we listen to them we say, "ahh  ok ok   I see that. So that is how you did this"  Sometimes we say, " So I am curious if that is how you did it then why did you do this"  The answer continues with an "OK that also makes sense to me"

 

What is revealed by the Bob H. confession.  We are not able to take what he told us and then run with it in a way that it explains 80-90% of the evidence.  It does not lead us to being able to duplicate the film.

 

There are examples after examples of the Confessor leading us forward.  Bob H. not only fails to do this, he expresses the cardinal sin of those who are untruthful--- he continues to change his story and does so in a contradictory way from many previous statements.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
Why have the Bob H followers not asked the hard Q-- with the main point this:  His story keeps changing and changing and changing.

 

 

Even before the story changes ever started happening - Heironimus was contracting himself to Long.

 

For instance, Heironimus said he got down in a hole as he knew it would be cooler as he was very hot inside the alleged fur covered suit. The hole he speaks of was merely an alleged hole made from where the roots of the tree were in the ground. We are talking less than two to three feet. Since when does stepping down into a hole offer relieve from the heat of the sun? Long never questioned the lack of logic in this claim.

 

Heironimus also added that this hole would help keep him out of the line of fire from hunters. Since when would such a shallow hole offer protection from gunfire, especially when the sandbar was surrounded by hillsides. Long never questioned the lack of logic in this claim.

 

Heironimus claimed that he, Patterson, and Gimlin didn't want to be seen together or the whole hoax would have been blown, but yet after the alleged staging of the film, Heironimus said he went back to Roger and Bob's camp and hung around for a while. The area where that camp was located was also used by other hunters and so forth, thus the not wanting to be seen together seemed to have flown out the window. Long never questioned the lack of logic in this claim as well.

 

Heironimus, obviously thinking on his feet, had told Long that Roger left fur off the alleged suit so to make it appear to be shedding its fur. But animals don't shed their fur just prior to Winter and Patterson would have known this. I suspect that Heironimus just threw it out there without thinking it through as he, like so many others, had seen the flattening of sunlight on the fur and thought it was missing hair in those areas. Heironimus trying to make it appear that he had some inside information so to impress Long had come back to bite him on the rump. I feel he had done the same sort of thing over the glass eye claim too.

 

I don't have the book in front of me, but did not Long mention the bulge on the leg in some of the frames only to have Heironimus say that was his car keys in his pocket. Yet Heironimus had described to long that the bottom of the suit was rubber lined like hip-waders. Since when would a set of car keys be seen bulging through the pocket of a pair of blue jeans, covered by a type of rubber lined gorilla suit that is also covered in thick hair? But that was the story and again Long never questioned the lack of logic in that claim either.

 

And let us not forget that when Phillip Morris said he first saw the film that he felt that because of the amount of body and muscle detail visible to him ... that the guy in the suit must have been a pretty big man to have filled it out so well. Heironimus was not a large man and Long never questioned it. Morris also claimed that Patterson must have redone the entire costume for everything about it as described by Heironimus was different than how Morris had originally made it and yet Phillip Morris told Greg Long that the first time he saw the film not long after it was filmed in 1967, that Morris could tell right off that it was one of his suits. Other than the subject in Roger's film having fur on it - what on earth was left from its alleged original condition that would allow Morris to have been able to see right away that this was one of his suits? And again Long never questioned the lack of logic in that claim either.

 

These are just a few of many more inconsistencies or contradictions I found when I read Long's book. I keep going back and reading the passages over and over and thinking I must be missing something for Long, as an investigator, had an obligation to seek clarification when these blatant inconsistencies came up, but Long dropped the ball each and every time and so much so that I felt Long was part of a hoax to make the PGF appear to be a hoax. And for those skeptics who were embracing the Heironimus story, where was their skepticism? Think about it .... when Roger said when he first saw the creature that it was squatted by the creek and Gimlin said that when he first saw it that it was standing, these same critical thinkers were thinking they had discovered an inconsistency that they could turn into a smoking gun. Where was the logic in considering that one man was riding just ahead of the other so that when Patterson's horse started getting excited that the creature had merely stood up between then and Gimlin coming around the tree and seeing for himself what the commotion was all about.

 

In the end it doesn't appear to me that Long was the only one who wasn't asking the hard questions.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

 

At times, truth is stranger than fiction! No mask, zippers, straps, etc., involved here.

Edited by thermalman
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple questions,

Who would pop out their glass eye and say "here glue this on the suit."? If I had a glass eye it would be kinda important to me, I wouldn't want it lost, broken, or covered in glue.

How do you even glue a glass eye on a rubber mask? Smooth glass ball glued to flexable rubber, puh leeze.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

 

Not to mention that back in the 60's, I think they were rather expensive. Heironimus must have had a box of them laying around just to hand out to people. I bet he was a real hoot at parties when he'd slip an extra one in someone's drink!         lol1_zps9cf3f9e2.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

A couple questions,

Who would pop out their glass eye and say "here glue this on the suit."? If I had a glass eye it would be kinda important to me, I wouldn't want it lost, broken, or covered in glue.

How do you even glue a glass eye on a rubber mask? Smooth glass ball glued to flexable rubber, puh leeze.

 

 

When I had braces my Dad told me if i ever lost my retainer I would be grounded for life!   I have a hard time believing if it was a glass eye he was actually using he would let anything happen to it.  Especially taking nearly non-existent Super Glue and gluing it in a mask.  Lets not forget if it fell out good luck finding it out there in bluff creek.    If it was some old glass eye he had then I could see using it but why only one side.  If we are to think he was part of a hoax he is looking back in the famous money shot. Thus, are we to think he would be Patty the Pirate.   Makes no sense.   As much as I like a tech analysis as much as anyone--thank you Dr. Meldrum and Mr. Munns, the points excite me more.     Some Mark Twain quote was something like 'I am not a good liar -I don't have that good of Memory' or words to that effect.    The Glass eye thing is so over-the-top ridiculous there is no way it could be taken seriously.  "<<oops>> I dropped my glass eye in the creek!   That's OK  I am getting paid $1,000 to keep my mouth shut.  Even though I won't see that money in decades, I will keep my mouth shut so the guy who created me can make a lot of money on the film."  Bob H.

 

Backdoc

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