Jump to content

Patty's Feet.....and The Footprints (Part 2)


Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

IMO Kit's concession of 1% is a generosity and placation to his current stance within the bigfoot community.

 

One percent would be bag it tag it sell it to the butcher in the store.

 

 

 

kit's concession of the probability being "reasonably good" is a contradiction to all of his condescending/mocking/insulting statements...in which he says things like "absurd/ludicrous/insane/why do we still do this in 2013...etc....etc....etc".

 

kit says:

 

'"Yes, there is a reasonable probability that Bigfoot exists within the PNW."

 
"Bigfoot....so dumb it hurts."

 

 

How about answering some questions, kit.....and making good, simple sense while doing it? Is that difficult for you? :)

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

I don't claim having one eye is a dark mask is the only explanation for Heironimus remembering the sand as snow white.

 

I was on a parade square many days when it was not blinding white, but rather it's normal grey, but I only recall the sliding white. I also do not have decades of seeing blinding white on film to tamper my memory. People can have that happen without any indication of deception.

 

Heironimus, like yourself, have too many other claims that when added together - they reduce the credibility level. Like I said before - Heironimus only wore the alleged fake head for the duriation of the film if we believe him. The rest of the time on that same day he had no excuse not to see the bluish gray sand. Add that BS to his claim Roger filmed from atop of a horse, the creek was dry, and the countless contradictions he told - he, like your bombshells, is a dud.

 

 

You could not show what kind of impression Roger should have made if he wore something to prevent making tracks if you tried.

 

Forget the 'kind' of impression that would be left behind - you haven't given a rational explanation how any weight can be applied to a high point in the sand and not be crushed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

So you are saying that you do not believe Heironimus when he said the feet were like bedroom slippers with foam toes? You see, no matter how they were made even if you no longer believe Heironimus as to how they appeared - did he not say that he wore his boots/shoes when in costume??

 

No, when I say that the construction method of the suit feet is unknown for certain, that includes being unknown for certain by Bob Heironimus.

 

Had Bob Heironimus done something other than describe something decades past in the only frame of reference available to him, that would be suspect. Bob comparing suit feet to old house slippers makes sense. Old house slippers are what Bob Heironimus knows. Had he said, "the feet had an outer encasement of slip latex and an inner layer of flexible latex," that would have me looking sideways at him.

 

So simply move beyond the Bigfootery quote-mining addiction and lets look at his actual words restored in context.

 

To Greg Long, p. 344, The Making of Bigfoot...

 

"So it had three pieces?"

 

"Yeah. I sat down on the log and took my boots off and slipped my legs into the legs of the suit, which felt like they were hip bots or wading boots, you know, those long boots that go up to your waist. My feet slipped into the feet of the suit. I think the feet were made of old house slippers you used to see around, that looked like a big foot with toes on them."

 

"You put your legs inside big rubber boots that went to your waist?"

 

"Yeah. All I can say is it felt like rubber boots."

 

"He must have cut the 'feet' off the boots and attached the 'Bigfoot' feet to them."

 

"I don't know."

 

Heironimus is describing things as best he can in his frame of reference. When Greg Long leads him, he makes clear what it felt like and clear when he does not have direct knowledge.

 

So this brings us to the March 22, 2004 interview with Heironimus on Countdown with Keith Olberman. Keith does not ask Heironimus anything about slippers, but rather a belt and sneakers...

 

OLBERMANN:  Sir, when computers and film analysis came into being, a lot of people studied and restudied this film and said, hey, wait a minute, two things.  Bigfoot is wearing a belt of some sort.  And it looks like he has got sneakers on.  Do you remember?  Were you wearing a belt or a harness of some sort to keep this costume in place?  

HEIRONIMUS:  No, there was no belt.  There were no slippers.  

OLBERMANN:  So were you walking on?  Were there bare feet inside the costume or what was that?  

 

HEIRONIMUS:  I was walking in my stocking feet inside the costume.  Yes, the manufacturer of the suit has some kind of a gorilla feet attached to the suit.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4587385/ns/msnbc-about_msnbc_tv/t/countdown-keith-olbermann-march/#.VaS4IXgQn-Y

 

Is that a transcription error, a verbal error? Did Albertan say sneakers yet Heironimus heard slippers? Did he say sneakers yet slippers somehow was transcribed? hard to say without the tape, but the context is clear, he is asked about a belt or harness and sneakers visible on the film.

 

So your next issue is because there and to Greg Long he makes clear he removed his boots before putting on the suit feet and you think elsewhere Heironimus says he wore his own footwear inside the suit. Again, restore the context that Bigfooters have taken away...

 

Xzone Radio interview, August 23, 2007...

 

Caller Thunderhawk from Oregon - I watched a stabilized version of the Patterson film a couple of days ago and when the creature or man in the suit steps down I saw its toes flex. Mr. Heironimus, were you barefoot or wearing shoes in the costume?

 

Bob Heironimus - I had shoes on.

 

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2012/01/12/heironimus-only-interviews-w-o-comment/preview/page/96/

 

A caller is asking Heironimus to account for something he can not possibly do, that callers belief the toes flex, which could not possibly be his own toes and he will not do. He doesn't say he had his own boots on. He said he had shoes on. I think having known Heironimus personally and how he listens to people, this is him clarifying the feet you see on film are not his own feet, but costume feet with his own inside. One needs to allow for the fact that this is a call in interview where the words, thoughts and questions being conveyed are not always completely clear to speaker and listener. This happens countless times between all manner of participants in these interviews and is simply a technical reality of when you have multiple people connected at various quality levels trying to speak with each other.

 

To try and constrain a deception from any of Heironimus' words above, you have to go with an interpretation that you know exactly what he was referring to in the situation when you simply do not know.

 

Interviewer asks about sneakers, transcription answer says slippers, what's going on there? You don't know for sure and neither do I.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, very weird to use the commonly held name for the creature Heironimus portrayed...

 

Yes it is very weird for somebody who has insisted it's not a some mystery creature with a cute name but just a guy called Bob Heirionimus in a suit. Do I detect you are now having doubts???

 

Your buddy Heironimus can't even make up his mind if he was in his stockinged feet inside the 'costume' or had shoes on. He has in fact claimed both.

Edited by Neanderfoot
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit, you are such a denialist. When did Bob H ever mention the toes? Don't you think he would have, if he had actually worn the feet?

 

"I think the feet were made of old house slippers you used to see around, that looked like a big foot with toes on them."  p. 344, MoB

Yes it is very weird for somebody who has insisted it's not a some mystery creature with a cute name but just a guy called Bob Heirionimus in a suit. Do I detect you are now having doubts???

 

No, I would say you're overreacting. When discussing the film subject that we commonly refer as Patty by that name rather than in every instance typing Bob, or Heironimus, for ease of discussion, I use the common Patty.

 

If that is super ninja suspicious, you can put that same suspicion to why Munns never says Bigfoot, but "biologically real" or why Gimlin never says Bigfoot, but "the creature."

 

Or you could relax and take it down a notch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

 

Which is it, kit??? :popcorn:

 

Is the probability of Bigfoot's existence "reasonably good"....or, is it "unlikely in the extreme" and "painfully the dumbest thing ever"?

 

It can't be both. 

 

Bigfoot being everywhere yet nowhere, IOW, as commonly described in Bigfootery, is the dumbest thing ever. That being a reality is unlikely in the extreme. 1% is a reasonably good probability when it comes to my interest in claims of reliable evidence. If I thought it was nil, I'd likely lose interest in such claims.

 

You can work that out if you like, or just make another technicolour dreampost having a fit over it.

I don't think you have any idea when I'm pulling your leg do you? You take things way too seriously.

 

I'll take your word for it. When it comes to Patty, you have a lot of people who take things way too seriously. So for the record, you're not in any way actually thinking it's weird when I use Patty the same as everyone else?

 

 

Yes it is very weird for somebody who has insisted it's not a some mystery creature with a cute name but just a guy called Bob Heirionimus in a suit. Do I detect you are now having doubts???

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't claim having one eye is a dark mask is the only explanation for Heironimus remembering the sand as snow white.

 

I was on a parade square many days when it was not blinding white, but rather it's normal grey, but I only recall the sliding white. I also do not have decades of seeing blinding white on film to tamper my memory. People can have that happen without any indication of deception.

 

 

Great now how about Bob's "dry creek bed" claim when the only way to get onto that sandbar from the road would be to either walk across a foot of wet flowing water or ride a horse over it. Why didn't Heironimus know that the creek wasn't dry? If he put 'the suit' on where he claimed then he would have had to traverse a 12ft wide or so wet flowing creek with considerable rocky banks on each side, in order to get to the sandbar and do his thang.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Generally you're going to be running into this wall with me where you're suffering from the fact that you have about 11 years of Bigfooters quote-mining Bob Heironimus and looking for anything they can to make the man seem a liar and nefarious colluder, and that I am always going to ensure the context is restored.

 

 


I've stated many times that I have had the same experience as Heironimus when I was in the military where I perceived a gray parade square to be blinding white. There is also the fact that Heironimus just like any normal person can have his memory legitimately confabulated by seeing the film. This happens all the time.

 

As for his mention of the dry creek bed, it is insignificant in actual context...

 

"We took the horses and the suit up the road to the place they had picked out for the filming. Got off the horses.
 

We looked around there to check to see if anybody was around. Listened for any cars coming up the road, and heard nothing. So we went and right there, they put the suit on me. Told me to go across here this dry creek bed" Bob Heironimus - Jeff Rense radio interview, March 1, 2004

 

So is he talking about being asked to cross the creek to where he will do his walk, or is he talking about doing the actual walk which was in fact on a dry creek bed?...

 

film-sight-001.jpg

 

We don't know if it's the former or the later and we can't force it to have the context we want. If Heironimus is going to be ninja and study the film and the accounts of Patterson and Gimlin to try and pretend he was there where his friends and his horse were there, why then go and make blatant

contradictions that are easily preventable by a cursory viewing of the materials and widely published accounts? Patterson on a grey mottled horse, Gimlin and him on his horse Chico and no white pack horse? For that matter why bother with an earlier timeline? There's no logic in doing that if he's simply trying to make up being the man in the suit. If Heironimus is tailoring his accounts to fit those of Patterson and Gimlin, he's doing really basic things that run completely contrary to that.

 

 

You can settle for quote-mining or try coming to that place where you have to face that this...

We looked around there to check to see if anybody was around. Listened for any cars coming up the road, and heard nothing. So we went and right there, they put the suit on me. Told me to go across here this dry creek bed"

 

Would mean that if you try and force it to mean what you want it to mean, it means Bob would have meant he was put into the suit on Roger's filming side of the running creek and asked to cross over to Bob's walk side of the running creek.

 

I think "go across here this dry creek bed" means the film site where he did the walk, not where they would have crossed the running creek to get there. 

 

Now how are you going to force it to the meaning you want today?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Bigfoot being everywhere yet nowhere, IOW, as commonly described in Bigfootery, is the dumbest thing ever. That being a reality is unlikely in the extreme. 1% is a reasonably good probability when it comes to my interest in claims of reliable evidence. If I thought it was nil, I'd likely lose interest in such claims.

 

You can work that out if you like, or just make another technicolour dreampost having a fit over it.

 

 

Sorry, kit...you have given two very different 'probabilities' for Bigfoot existing.....within the PNW...

 

"....we have the BFRO forwarding the concept of a massive North American mammal that unlike wolverines remain in relatively limited ranges and unlike bears do not den and enter a state torpor in the winter of northern latitudes.

I think it takes very little critical thinking to realize that such conditions inevitably lead to situations where Bigfoot eluding identification is unlikely in the extreme. "

 

 

Earlier today....you described it as a "reasonably good probability".

 

On JREF....you described it as "unlikely in the extreme".

 

 

Which is it??? :popcorn:

 

It can't be both. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit has mentioned again his experience being blinded by the light when marching on a parade ground in the military. Yet the rest go the story is this:

- it happened in the summertime in the brightest sun summer will produce. It did not occur in late October when the sun is at an angle producing the least glare. He attributes a phenomenon to the PGF which is a summertime occurrence and does not happen in October. Fall sky's are known to produce the most mild glare as the sun is at a low angle ( see the Cosine law)

- at no point could we ask Kit or anyone he served with marching that summer the color of the parade ground and get an answer of white. If they had been there longer than 10 seconds they would known when asked it was not white.

- when someone is asked about conditions such as color in a format where they know they are being questioned for proof or authenticity, they would not just throw out "white as snow" Kit and those he served with would know if the surface was shiny beat down grass, grey concrete, blacktop and so on. One might say, " the sun was bright and we squinted a lot but the parade ground was grey concrete or whatever".

It stretches the limits on how bad a person wishes to cover for someone when they will attribute conditions they experienced in the summer (still knowing the actual color of the parade grounds) and say those conditions existed in October.

Finally in the radio interview just prior to the famous bob hieronimus "white as snow" comment the interviewer was asking about plaster casts bobby claims roger used being fragile. Bob followed this comment implying the soil at bluff creek as "white as snow". It is possible he was implying you would not see pieces of plaster stompers since the soil was that white.

The soil is not "white as snow"

Ask someone who grew up around Chicago the color of Green River soda and they know the color even on a bright summer day. If they saw it, they would not mistake it.

Oh it's a snow job alright. We just can tell who has been snowed and who is still snow blind with loyalty to bob Heironimus.

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

Earlier today....you described it as a "reasonably good probability".

 

On JREF....you described it as "unlikely in the extreme".

 

 

Which is it??? :popcorn:

 

It can't be both. 

 

No, I did not. It had a context. You yoinked it. Quote-mining is an addiction. Let me put the context back for you...

 

 

I think it takes very little critical thinking to realize that such conditions inevitably lead to situations where Bigfoot eluding identification is unlikely in the extreme. Can a Bigfoot scrounge 12,000 kcal/day in Wisconsin during the winter and not be discovered? I say not, nope, nuh-uh.

 

 
 
A population of Bigfoots in Wisconsin getting thousands of calories a day each and eluding identification is unlikely in the extreme. I'd put that probability at about 0.001%.
 
Every time you remove the link to the original conversation, every time you hack out the bits you don't want people to read, you are a quote-miner. It's a compulsion you don't stop.
 
Every time you do it, I'll just restore the original comments and context.

Kit has mentioned again his experience being blinded by the light when marching on a parade ground in the military. Yet the rest go the story is this:

- it happened in the summertime in the brightest sun summer will produce. It did not occur in late October when the sun is at an angle producing the least glare. 

 

Neither did filming Bob Heironimus.

 

Does this look to be conditions that one would describe as very bright?

 

Bigplasterpour.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think "go across here this dry creek bed" means the film site where he did the walk, not where they would have crossed the running creek to get there. 

 

Now how are you going to force it to the meaning you want today?

 

The point you can't seem to understand is that there was no "dry creek bed". The creek bed was wet and in flow and is out of shot in all frames except the first few and even then you have to look really closely at the stabilised footage..

Bob Heirionimus didn't know this. He was never there and had no idea that the creek bed was not dry but actually wet and in flow. The creek bed at Bluff Creek never runs dry. Massive massive "whoops" by Heironimus. He doesn't know the first thing about the film site and has never been there in his life. This is evident by his many ridiculous comments. I don't even have to bother measuring his body proportions. Bob Heironimus was never at Bluff Creek in his life.

 

So for the record, you're not in any way actually thinking it's weird when I use Patty the same as everyone else?

 

 

 

No I think it's more amusing and ironic especially as you don't think there is really a real Patty but a real Bob Heironimus in that footage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

This is a dry creek bed...

 

PGF+Dahinden+1971+Aerial.jpg

 

Flooding made it get that way. in 1967 that part of it was largely dry. Not a lot of precipitation through the summer months. You can want that not to be a dry creek bed. You can want that another person might consider it to be such. You can not force that into fact. It is just what you want.

 

Had Heironimus been referring to only the running creek in this statement, it would equate the nonsense of suiting up on Roger's side of the creek and wading through in the suit to his walking side...

 

"We looked around there to check to see if anybody was around. Listened for any cars coming up the road, and heard nothing. So we went and right there, they put the suit on me. Told me to go across here this dry creek bed"

 

What you're trying to force on Heironimus makes zero sense in the very context you want it to be.

 

 

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