Jump to content
kitakaze

Patterson/gimlin Vs Independence Day Footage - A Closer Look.

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

 In my usage of the word 'fraud'....I mean a moral crime, against humanity....i.e....Patty. 

 

 

Given this claim of Bill's, regarding the analysis in his book...

 

 

I think you'll find numerous elements that rule out a person in a costume to a certainty. I think you will also find that every consideration for a hoax is defeated in no uncertain terms.

 

 

....we have, at the very least...'probable cause' that your claim is false...and possibly fraudulent.

 

So, what responsibility should an Administrator of a Bigfoot Forum have, when faced with 'probable cause' that one of it's members has made a fraudulent claim of "having found the Patty suit"....and of "having three confessions" relating to the Film???

 

Maybe none. Who am I to say? :)

 

OK, a moral crime. Your argument is that a claim by Bill about the authenticity of the PGF makes probable cause that a claim by me about seeing a suit is false, possibly fraudulent, in the moral crime sense of the word.

 

And yet Bill himself has made the argument that based on the testimony of of Harry Kemball of Canawest Films that most of what Bob Heironimus claimed was in fact true, just that it's not the PGF that we all know that he was in, but rather footage for his Bigfoot film he was working on prior to the PGF, which we know Heironimus was in fact in...

 

 

'Bill', on 11 Mar 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:snapback.png

Simply put, current debate divides into two opposite extremes. One position is the PGF is true and real, and all the claims of Bob Heironimous and friends are false. The opposing position is that the PGF is a hoax and the claims of Bob Heironimous and friends are true.

Could there be a third alternative, that the claims of Bob Heironimous are mostly true, and he did wear some kind of suit and perform for Roger's camera, but his filmed segment is not the PGF we see?

(snip)

So if we reconsider Mr. Kemball's statement of the film he saw, and factor in what we now know about Roger's other documentary filming activity, it gives a whole new level of credibility to Mr. Kemball's testimony about seeing footage with a guy in a gorilla suit.

This leads us to the intriguing prospect that Roger may have indeed put Bob Heironimous into a gorilla suit of some type, and filmed him, since Bob H was indeed much taller than Roger. But if so, it also eliminates Bob Heironimous entirely from being what we see in the PGF, if Bob H. only did one filming with Roger. If this curious matter does hold up to further investigation and some kind of verification, it has the intriguing consequences of validating most of the testimony of Bob Heironimous and those acquainted with him (as described in Long's book, "Making of Bigfoot") while still completely taking Bob Heironimous out of the actual PGF picture. He may not be in the PGF footage, if he's in other footage, shot at a different time, with Ektachrome film, a non K-100 camera with a zoom lens on it, and the film pushed in the lab to result in a very grainy image (just like Roger's other documentary footage, but absolutely unlike the PGF footage in any way).

 

 

So then how does a claim of Bill's about the PGF being authentic falsify and/or show fraudulent anyone else's claim, BrentD's or mine about seeing a suit?

 

And if you're requesting the BFF administration to do anything with me based on Bill's arguments about the PGF, what do you think they can or should do? Do you think I should give them something I haven't already given Bill? And what do you think BFF administration could do, that Bill could not do?

 

Would you like to make that a formal request? I'd very much like to see what comes of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Does this really make any sense as a legitimate argument to you Kit? Bob is not liar, because his claim might be mostly true, he just got confused as to what film he was in?

 

 

There is no relevancy here, nothing that salvages BobH's ridiculous stories, and its off topic.

 

 

When where you going to film that walk in big feet thing?  Maybe wear some waders to, you know, like Bob did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 It will do more than that, and try it without locking your knee's, but then you already know this is not an accurate statement. As a matter of fact Kit, lets see you do some actual research for a change. Put on some over sized feet and for  a walk in the sand. Film it. Demonstrate for us, show us some science. I would like to see you prove your point.

 

As you seem to know the answer, what exactly will walking in large feet which project beyond one's own do while walking without locking one's knees? Does Patty never lock her knees? See post #81. Would you like me to put on some big feet and walk around for you? What difference would there be between that and the examples of people doing that that I've already pointed out? Were I to walk as Patty does, as Bronston Delone did, you'd dismiss it as simply copying an original gait.

 

Walking in the sand, not locking knees, wearing oversized feet, making shin rise..

xwUDiX.gif

 

In the woods...

_U3ZzC.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Neither one of those clips really tells anything. I cannot tell in the top one because of angle, and the woods one, even though its hard to say with certainty, looks like he is locking his knees. You don't have better examples than that?  Your suppose to be showing me the same walk as Patty, not some loosely similar hard to tell thing. You present these things as if they are conclusive, yet they never are. 

 

Next you will blame your inability to present anything that adequately matches your claims on the "state of bigfootry", 

 

Waders, big feet, sand......and what the heck, lets really keep it accurate.....you get one shot at it, just like BobH claims he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

So then how does a claim of Bill's about the PGF being authentic falsify and/or show fraudulent anyone else's claim, BrentD's or mine about seeing a suit?

 

 

 

Because you have claimed that there was no mistaking that this was the Patty suit

 

Here is a quote of yours...

 

 

Question:

 

 

How are you going about certifying its authenticity?

I can only say that the documentary will show that, but when the suit and it's source are revealed, no one will doubt the authenticity. Beyond the appearance of the suit itself, it's the source and their explanation of why they have the suit and why it was not destroyed that will make discussions of authenticity. 

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page-3

 

 

Therefore, if Bill's claim is correct....then your claim must be false. Unless, you weren't really certain that "the suit you saw" was "the Patty suit". :)

 

 

But, regardless...what is most important here, is not Harry Kemball's story....(a diversion).....but that your claim can be investigated...and either exposed as false/fraudulent...or confirmed as legit.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

SW, while we are both in agreement about the suit being a hoax (and that the fact of it was obvious as soon as it was announced) what we don't know (and likely never will) is who committed the hoax.  So its probably enough said. 

 

 

I don't think enough has been said, Salubrious. A false claim like kitakaze's should be looked into, IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Because you have claimed that there was no mistaking that this was the Patty suit

 

Here is a quote of yours...

 

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page-3

 

 

Therefore, if Bill's claim is correct....then your claim must be false. Unless, you weren't really certain that "the suit you saw" was "the Patty suit". :)

 

 

But what is most important here, is not Harry Kemball's story....(a diversion).....but that your claim can be investigated...and either exposed as false/fraudulent...or confirmed as legit.

 

Bill's opinions about the veracity of the PGF and my claim of seeing a suit are not mutually exclusive. As Bill argued, it is possible another suit existed. I feel certain the suit I saw was used in the PGF based upon the appearance of the suit and who has it, but I have never been able to get the owner to explain why they have that suit and how they obtained it. The plans I had in place to get them to do so were something I was never able to make happen.

 

From the beginning I have always been asked if maybe I was in some way duped by someone wanting me to believe it was the actual suit and me wanting to believe the same. The manner in which the suit is kept, who keeps it, how it looks all make it very clear that this was the suit used in the PGF hoax, but I could not say that it is impossible the suit was a replica being presented as the original.

 

I am satisfied that I was not wrong, but it would be intellectually dishonest of me to say the possibility does not exist.

 

So if I was wrong, would that make me dishonest?

 

And what do you seriously want the BFF to do about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

 Perhaps fraud is a strong word, how about deliberate misinformation? I will go out on a limb here and say it as I see it, I mean after all that is what we do with hoaxers and other wild claims on the proponent side, right?  So I would think when we encounter the MikeP's of the skeptical side we are within our rights to do the same.....yes? I think its time to call a spade a spade here,and label the whole suit thing for exactly what it is, a hoax. Its nothing more than some "technique" to sway based on the internet skeptic standard of make a claim, then later revisited as if it where fact. I think skeptical sided wild claims, and obvious dishonesty should be met with the same level of contempt and discredit as it is on the proponent side. 

 

 

 Yes that is correct McSquatch, this is not a court of law where you bring up a technicality, a glitch, and think its going to stick with some sort of relevance. There may be other forums where that kind of behavior is encouraged, or even admired, but here it really on reveals the character of those who attempt it.

 

Don't worry about my Character.

 

I pointed out Don Jeffrey was wrong and provided a link and I stand by it.

 

He was also wrong about the Snow Walker. Let\s debate that. He was wrong.

 

This isn't about that though. It's about shine rise and favouritism between two hoaxed videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

I pointed out Don Jeffrey was wrong and provided a link and I stand by it.

 

 

 No worries Squatchy, I am no more worried about your character than Dr. Meldrum is, I was pointing out some interesting traits exhibited by many of the internet self proclaimed critical thinking skeptics, thanks for your support though.

 

Maybe you can put on the big feet, waders, and take a one shot walk through the sand, and then add your analysis to the paper where you all do a nice professional rebuttal, if a couple of cowboys and someone like BobH can pull it off, I am sure it would be easy for you guys........no?

Edited by JohnC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

I don't think enough has been said, Salubrious. A false claim like kitakaze's should be looked into, IMO. 

 

I put as much weight on Kitakaze's claim as I do on JC's 9'x6' Bigfoot Sighting.

 

You want the Admins to look into every single sasquatch sighting claim as well, I hope.

 

Kitakaze doesn't expect me to believe his claim.  He knows he has not provided any evidence supporting his claim.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Post #93 only helps pull me toward the opinion of 'Patty is real.'

 

We seem to somehow spin off into who is a fraud, liar, who means what, and personal attacks.  So meanwhile, back to the IDF v PGF:

 

IDF just looks fake to me.  I have not studied to close but it just looks fake.

 

PGF move smooth and is impressive.

 

Mr. Blevins, not so much.  X creatures, not so much.

 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

It's a slow day on the Forum, so here is an 'Oldie but Goodie'....from kitakaze... :lol: ...

 

 

 

To all the community of people I have come to know in the field we call Bigfootery:

I have passed out of this field of interest. I have agreed to give what things I have found in my studies to Bill Munns, him being the person I deem most worthy to take over the investigations I have done. I have endeavoured to enter into the foreign service of my country as a diplomat using my language skills and knowledge of foreign affairs and history. Bigfoot is always for those whom pursue it, a deeply abiding interest, but not one I can any longer devote the same interest to. I wish those who pursue the mystery the best of luck. Sasquatch is a part of the Canadian identity, albeit one which is mythical. Should through the efforts of Bill Munns, or any others in the field, this become something other than a myth, I would be deeply thankful.

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page-139

 

 

 

Should through the efforts of Bill Munns, or any others in the field, this become something other than a myth, I would be deeply thankful.

 

 

You gonna have your copy of Bill's book autographed, kit?? :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I can't wait to get Bill's Book as it will become it's own link on the BFF as a basis to have a discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm surprised it did not occur to you the fact that Ans: because all 15 inches of Gordon Ramsay's feet are his actual feet. Being 6 ft and having size 15 feet will not make you walk with a shin rise. Walking in long strides in large feet which project beyond your own feet will do that.

Are you serial? That is absolute nonsense. You contend that the shin rise is caused to clear the toes from the ground. What difference does it make whether they are real or fake? Do you think Ramsay would walk differently if he wore size 15 shoes but his feet were size 12? You really dropped the ball here.

And don't get me started on the dynamics of Patty's feet as she walks. Very unflipper-like indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Pat, that part from the Harry and the Henderson tv series shows Harry taking small, slow steps while looking up holding a watch. 2:26 on Blevins' footage shows his very first step when his son says, "Go!" The smaller the step, the less the shine rise, as is the case with Jeff and every other costume wearer, as is the case with Patty...

 

ThinkerThunker argues for the reality of both the PGF and IDF based on similar shin rise. If you think the examples I have shown are of people simply copying that movement...

 

...it's not very reliable evidence for determining Bigfoot, is it?

kitakaze,

 

You didn't say anythin' bout step length. Watch Blevins from 2:26 on...he's does the look back an everythin' in his wanderin'...simply looks like he forgets to mimic the walk. Do you have anythin' to offer that the images I showed of Jeff he is takin' a smaller step than the three frames you showed, suggestin' the shin rise is from a longer step ? 

 

The image you showed of P/G sasquatch shows nothin' of shin rise, nor can you tell from that angle how far the feet are apart, so I don't see the relevance ?

 

From Harry an Henderson's clip, watch actor on right, second step he(?) locks his left leg, fifth step makin' the turn, doesn't raise right foot much, inconsistent in my opinion simply do to tryin' to replicate the walk. 

 

I've seen ThinkerThunker's observations, however, I've not spent much time studyin' that video as it doesn't peak my interest, looks like a hoax to me. The P/G filmed subject is a sasquatch in my opinion, so it's only natural to compare what we see in it to what we see in other videos, just as it would be for hoaxers etc. to try to replicate or mimic the sasquatch filmed. So...the walk etc. of any subject claimed to be a sasquatch will always be compared to the P/G sasquatch.

 

 

Pat...

 

ps: The image of her feet you provided suggestin' a short step...here's her foot durin' the swing phase.

post-279-0-38183300-1406330873_thumb.jpg

Edited by salubrious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...