Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

Shady characters, road close by, film that looks good in it's simplicity...costume and a hoax in my opinion.  I would like it to be real however.

 

t.

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Thank you for this detail.  Wow.  That Bob has quite an imagination.   Reminds me of a lady I had in my office who claimed her husband twisted her arm but her story did not add up.  I asked her "How far can you move it"  She demonstrated her limited motion and winced in pain.  Then I ask, "I wonder how far you could move your shoulder before he twisted it"  To this she quickly moved her arm all over the place with no limitations to show me.  Then, she quickly went back to her "I-can't-move-it" position.    This is the same with Bob H.  When right in front of his eyes (ears) Long hears this stuff he is trying to ignore what is obvious to the rest of us since he wants to believe Bob H. no matter what his own lying eyes tell him.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

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.

 

Bob H. is the answer to the first question.  The second question seems even easier to answer...Gorilla Glue.

 

Thank you for this detail.  Wow.  That Bob has quite an imagination.   Reminds me of a lady I had in my office who claimed her husband twisted her arm but her story did not add up.  I asked her "How far can you move it"  She demonstrated her limited motion and winced in pain.  Then I ask, "I wonder how far you could move your shoulder before he twisted it"  To this she quickly moved her arm all over the place with no limitations to show me.  Then, she quickly went back to her "I-can't-move-it" position.    This is the same with Bob H.  When right in front of his eyes (ears) Long hears this stuff he is trying to ignore what is obvious to the rest of us since he wants to believe Bob H. no matter what his own lying eyes tell him.

 

Backdoc

 

 

Was she wearing a BF suit, or is there some other relevant point you were using to connect the two?

Edited by Ace!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

...

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.

 

Bob H. is the answer to the first question.  The second question seems even easier to answer...Gorilla Glue.

 

Do you have any data supporting that 'gorilla glue' had even been invented by October of 1967? Do you have any data supporting the notion that Heironimus had more than one prosthetic eye at the time of the PGF?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you, a skeptic?  Why would Bob H have to have more than one prosthetic eye?

 

Gorilla Glue has been a USA made product for over a decade, so way long enough to be used in the PGF.  Also, it was used in Indonsesia much, much longer.  Although, I guess Bob could have used cyanoacrylate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Ace asked me: "Was she wearing a BF suit, or is there some other relevant point you were using to connect the two?"

 

Mr. Ace, The example I gave is simple. Someone right in front of you can be an obvious fraud.  In the case of Long, he has to go out of his way to avoid asking the critical questions when something is said right in front of him.   

Obvious signs of questionable credibility avoid a challenge when the evaluator.  Why no hard Q of Bob H?   Why isn't Mr. Long literally laughing Bob H out of the interview when he claims to have offered his glass eye up for anything let alone use it in a Bigfoot Costume.  That's all I was getting at.

Backdoc

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

I think I get it now.  Someone lied to you, so Bob must be lying.

 

 

No someone displayed an Obvious   'what the heck was that!'  moment.   It got my attention as it would have anyones.  Yet, when a man tells or  claims to be the man in the patty suit and claims he loaned his glass eye to use for one eye of a fake suit out in the woods?  WOW--- that is the type of obvious   WHAT! moment most would question further.  Then there are others and the  many changing stories.  So the point is this:    When someone claims something  and off the wall points come up those should raise reasonable Q's.   I'm done on this as to keep from boring the reader.   One either gets it or they don't.  time to move on

 

Backdoc

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

Topic is "Reasons not to consider PGF a hoax."

 

My Q for those like me who think Patty is a creature of nature:  What would have to happen to make you change your mind and adopt a view that Patty is a hoax after all?

 

First the obvious for everyone: A film showing Roger and Bob back in 1967  caught red handed doing a Patty hoax.

 

Apart from such an obvious thing, what would it take to make you as a believer in Patty change to a believer that Patty is a hoax?

 

For me it would be a successful suit being done that results in a same or near the same result of Patty film and resulting footprint findings and looking near exact to the patty film.   If they could show film stock from 1967 and a suit they made using 1967 materials and methods and thus reproduce the patty film, this would do it for me.  I would strongly move toward Patty being a hoax since the result would speak for themselves.

 

The fact these attempts have failed so far so badly (hello X Creatures or Morris costume) to me are the reason I can't think Patty is a hoax.  All the attempts I have seen have been laughable.  

 

 

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I think I get it now.  Someone lied to you, so Bob must be lying.

 

 

Kerchak wrote:

 

"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?"

 

 

From this thread, that he started a while ago...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/35994-the-defenders-of-bob-heironimus/

 

 

And, the thread Kerchak started about Bobby's "mass of nonsense"... :lol: ...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/8474-the-self-contradictions-of-bob-heironimus/

 

 

 

I think I get it now.....Bob contradicts himself all over the place....is incorrect in many details, in his "confession".....has failed to reveal many details that he should have knowledge of, if he was Patty....and, doesn't match-up physically with Patty......so, therefore....Bob was not Patty. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

One of the Gorillas at our Zoo, Mwelu, is having his 27th birthday today so; they posted a picture of him on facebook.  I wanted to share his pic because he's awesome and because I was struck by all of the apparent shoulder pads, v's, straps, wrist-bands and other impossible costume lines ;)

 

post-131-0-75829700-1374010208_thumb.jpg

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

One of the Gorillas at our Zoo, Mwelu, is having his 27th birthday today so; they posted a picture of him on facebook.  I wanted to share his pic because he's awesome and because I was struck by all of the apparent shoulder pads, v's, straps, wrist-bands and other impossible costume lines ;)

 

attachicon.gifMwelu.jpg

 

 

Love it.  There is just something in the human mind that is both fascinating and terrorizing about looking at a gorilla or ape.  There is a factor where it looks so human.   Have to wonder if this emotional feeling comes in to play when people are viewing the Patterson Film. 

 

I go back to the Quote I read from Grieve who stated, "subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."   I think there is something emotional about seeing a primate.

 

I have to wonder what Patterson and Gimlin felt if not outright shock of the seeing Patty.

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
xspider1
I think that O. Allen Guinn, III, M.D., covered reasons #239,033,257 through #240,456,512 or, thereabouts not to consider the PGf a hoax very, very well in the link that Mulder provided here:

 Excellent new confirming observations from a qualified medical professional now up at RHI.

 

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns%20&%20Meldrum%20Commentary_2013.pdf

 

He even caught some things that the original paper missed.

 

Game over!  Patty is a sasquatch!

 

Of course, the above may never have been said without the outstanding work that Bill Munns and Jeff Meldrum wrote in two PGf papers linked here: (http://www.isu.edu/rhi/research-papers.shtml).  

Edited by chelefoot
Rule 2A
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the Gorillas at our Zoo, Mwelu, is having his 27th birthday today so; they posted a picture of him on facebook.  I wanted to share his pic because he's awesome and because I was struck by all of the apparent shoulder pads, v's, straps, wrist-bands and other impossible costume lines ;)

 

attachicon.gifMwelu.jpg

 

Real or fake?

 

a.

content-24-82-img_5614.jpg

 

b.

img_cadburys.jpg

 

c.

2112977-young-silverback-gorilla-in-fron

 

d.

gorilla6.jpg

 

e.

phil-the-gorilla.jpg

 

 

No cheating.

 

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

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