Jump to content
salubrious

Was Bob Heironimus Patty? Pt 2

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

^^

 

1) Did not Heironimus first deny to Long that he was involved with that film?   

 

2) Then he later said he was the creature.  

 

3) Then to support his being in the film he made a bunch of claims that can easily be proven to be a lie. Other things he had said he later contradicted the earlier things he has said.

 

 

Hmmm.....maybe that's why kit and Bobbo 'hit it off' so well....when kit interviewed him. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Seeing the link to this upcoming Bigfoot Conference...

 

http://www.internationalbigfootconference.com

 

 

....I had an idea, regarding my plan, or hope, to someday interview Bob Heironimus. How about if Bob H. is invited/challenged to attend the Conference....for the purpose of facing some questioning...(by me)....regarding his claim? 

 

There is no reason why, in such a setting, it couldn't be a civil and respectful interview.  I can ask Bob some difficult questions...and Bob can strengthen his claim, by producing some very informative answers. 

 

 

And actually, since the PGF has yet to be proven definitively to be either real, or a hoax....does not Bob Heironimus have some reason/justification for attending a Bigfoot conference....just as Bob Gimlin does? Both claim to be principles, involved in the making of the world's most famous Bigfoot film. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
And actually, since the PGF has yet to be proven definitively to be either real, or a hoax....does not Bob Heironimus have some reason/justification for attending a Bigfoot conference....just as Bob Gimlin does? Both claim to be principles, involved in the making of the world's most famous Bigfoot film. 

 

 

Excellent. Invite both men. I can facilitate inviting Bob Heironimus. Neither men need to be on a stage together nor even need speak with each other. They can be asked all the really outstanding questions respective to their claims.

 

Want to talk about both? Let's talk to both.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 

And actually, since the PGF has yet to be proven definitively to be either real, or a hoax....does not Bob Heironimus have some reason/justification for attending a Bigfoot conference....just as Bob Gimlin does? Both claim to be principles, involved in the making of the world's most famous Bigfoot film. 

 

 

Excellent. Invite both men. I can facilitate inviting Bob Heironimus. Neither men need to be on a stage together nor even need speak with each other. They can be asked all the really outstanding questions respective to their claims.

 

Want to talk about both? Let's talk to both.

 

 

Kitakaze, you cannot facilitate much of anything these days. But if you do .... I would love to discuss with Heironimus the many contradictions he has made - not to mention the things I know he simply made up. I don't think he would last even half way through what will not be a good experience for him before he would leave and not return.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

 

Excellent. Invite both men. I can facilitate inviting Bob Heironimus. Neither men need to be on a stage together nor even need speak with each other. They can be asked all the really outstanding questions respective to their claims.

 

 

 

While that sounds fair and reasonable, kit....I don't think that Bob Gimlin should be subjected to 'hard questioning'  at this point in his life.....and least of all, at a Bigfoot Conference....(where he is accustomed to the positive reception by fellow Bigfoot proponents.)

 

As I have said before...I see a distinct difference between asking 'hard questions' of Bob G. and asking them of Bob H.  In Gimlin's case...he has a film which can be analyzed, to determine the truth behind it.

 

Heironimus, on the other hand, has nothing of the sort.  And, the analysis has shown pretty definitively that he was not the filmed subject. Bob H should face hard questioning....and...while 'on camera'. 

 

 

I wouldn't expect Bob H. to accept the invitation/challenge to appear at a Bigfoot Conference, to face such questioning....but he can be invited, nonetheless.

 

If his claim of being Patty were true.....then he could look at this as an opportunity to reveal more details of the filming event....and possibly even strengthen his claim. :)

 

 

Speaking of his claim....here is a comparison of Bob and Patty....with the images scaled to match the lengths of the lower-legs...

 

BobPattyLowerlegComp%20AG1_zpsn18zxtoe.g

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I would not be afraid to have Gimlin answer questions on any public forum. I have probably spoken to Bob Gimlin as much as anyone and when I mentioned to him that I had not heard some of the things before he has told me that when doing talk shows and conferences he is answering questions pertaining to certain things about the trip whereas I took a different approach and had him first walk me through the entire trip right down to Roger sitting buck naked in a chilling stream to wash himself. My method is as old as it gets for it is no secret that if someone wants to catch any inconsistencies - let the person of interest elaborate on as many points as they like because the more information they give - the more pieces of the puzzle the interviewer has to work with when looking for anything that doesn't fit with something else that has been said. Not to brag, but I can play the devils advocate as well as anyone. When I ask a question there is a reason for it as I am most always two steps ahead of the person I am questioning. Lawyers do this all the time and I have watched and learned from some of the masters doing it. I have yet to ever ask Bob for an explanation that he didn't have a sensible and rational answer for me. I have taken him far afield and back into his story from other directions to get to a point he has made in the past and either he is telling the truth to the best of his ability or he is a genius with one of the most incredible memories of anyone I have ever met.

 

Bob Heironimus would be another story as I could give him the questions I would ask ahead of time and he wouldn't last no time before walking out no matter how nicely the questions were asked. And anyone present will see that I would do the same with Gimlin because I have and I can assure everyone that only one man's credibility will be in tact when the smoke clears.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

One note about the comparison I posted above....I have Bob's image slightly over-scaled, regarding the length of his lower-leg.....(since he was coming-up well short of Patty's height, as it was.)

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Every person I have interviewed, including those closest to the film and its creators have spoken only of Bob Heironimus being in the suit. 

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/43765-pgf-royalities/page-54#entry892526

 

 

So kit, how many "principals" of the PGF have said...(to whomever)....that Bob Heironimus was Patty? 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

To continue to imply or back Bob H as 'the guy in the suit' is to also support that this is a Morris suit.  

 

Bob H has taken money from Morris to support, acknowledge and advertise it is a Morris production.  

 

If you wish to say Bob H was just making money but its not a Morris suit is to publicly admit the man is not telling the truth.

 

.. and to continue to support the idea - backed by a man whom you accept is not truthful in nature..  is to continue the support of a false idea for ones own false beliefs and personal agenda.  

 

Keep it up Heironimites.. keep it up.   

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Well said, Wheellug.  One of the first points I would raise with Bob H is how was it that after he allegedly traveled miles from Bob and Roger's camp to the film site and back again did he not notice the blusih-gray color of the sand just to see what he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

^ Since there are all these bigfeets showing up everywhere to the point they've become a nuisance not unlike black bear and raccoon I'll go with the PGF being real and Bob is a fibber.  Yup I almost hit a bigfoot this morning when I went to Trader Joe's.  I don't like to drive at night because the darn smelly things are all over the place.


How is it that you can be so horribly mistaken about the BM Wallace tracks being real?  Both you and Bob are making a few $$$$ from bigfoot and that's what counts it's always been about $$$$.

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

I would not be afraid to have Gimlin answer questions on any public forum. 

 

 

I wouldn't be worried about it either, BH.   :)

 

The "worst" that could happen, is the truth could be found out. And even if that truth is that the film is a hoax...the most important thing here is discovering, and proving, the truth of what the film shows.  

 

That's why I have been asking kit questions about his bombshell claims...and suggesting that others ask him questions, also.  I've even requested that the Administrators of the Forum investigate his claims. If his claims are true....then let's find out. And if they're not...that would be a meaningful discovery, also. kit could then be branded as a hoaxer. 

 

 

But, as far as Gimlin being asked to submit to 'hard questioning'...I don't think that is an appropriate thing to ask, at this point in his life. He's been hassled/attacked enough, over the film. It's also not warranted by the analysis of the film....which has been mostly favorable, for it's legitimacy.

 

 

Another question for kit...why do you even need to have Bob Gimlin questioned....when you have...

 

 

 

Proof of the PGF hoax is not a hypothetical. My finding it has involved equal parts luck, effort, and willingness to stick to the source and be Axel Foley about it. The proof of that hoax is not one thing, it is three. They are...

1) The suit. It exists. It was not destroyed. The reason it still exists is more vanity and pride than anything else.

2) The confessions. These exist as well. The confession comes actually in three to four parts. Four if I can make cooperation happen, three if I don't. All of them the sources of the PGF.

3) Proof of the hoax on the film itself, specifically the second reel. The first and second reel both exist fully intact and the person who had it hated the subject of Bigfoot, hated bigfooters, and wanted nothing to do with them. 

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7117-pattys-feetand-the-footprints/page-30#entry568938

 

 

So, why do you need to interrogate Bob??? :popcorn:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ good question.  With kit having gone all "Axel Foley" on the PGf 4 years ago, one might assume that he solved the mystery.  Yet there is still absolutely no indication of that to this day.  He must have been talking about a different Axel Foley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^ Since there are all these bigfeets showing up everywhere to the point they've become a nuisance not unlike black bear and raccoon I'll go with the PGF being real and Bob is a fibber.  Yup I almost hit a bigfoot this morning when I went to Trader Joe's.  I don't like to drive at night because the darn smelly things are all over the place.

How is it that you can be so horribly mistaken about the BM Wallace tracks being real?  Both you and Bob are making a few $$$$ from bigfoot and that's what counts it's always been about $$$$.

 

What is " BM Wallace"? Are you saying - bowel movement Wallace? I don't get the trader Joe nonsense either ... you will have to explain that one to me.

 

Regardless, I first wasn't looking at the BCM tracks to know if they were real or not, but rather to see for myself if the claim that they were a perfect match for the Wallace wood carvings was really true. I believe I have shown that the perfect match claim was far from accurate to say the least. It was the scrutinizing the images that led me to seeing things in those tracks that supported what Green and Dahinden had told me about them. At one point I felt that I should try to find the pilot to see what he had to say. Eventually, with the assistance from Thomas Steenburg and Barry Blount - I managed to speak to the pilot personally.

 

As far as I making money off of Bigfoot ... SCA makes money by giving people tours. As I have made clear in the past ... the concept for SCA came about by continually being told by tourist who I would speak to at no charge, how they would enjoy going out and doing what I do.

 

I didn't act right away. It was several years before I started SCA in order to help the community of Harrison Hot Springs by offering something fun and exciting for tourist and their families to do. To date I have not had a season that has allowed me to show a profit over and above what it cost me to offer this service to others. So when someone like yourself talks about my motives for creating this company or that I am making money off of Bigfoot - I look at it as just more of some people who make assumptions without really knowing the facts just to hear themselves talk.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

When Bob H talks it reminds me of this exchange from When Harry Met Sally:

 

Harry: You were a good friend of umm...
Sally: Amanda's. I can't believe you can't remember her name.
Harry: What do you mean? I remember, Amanda right? Amanda Rice.
Sally: Reese.
Harry: Reese, right! That's what I said!

 

 

That is Bob Heironimus in a nut shell.  He makes a statement, he is pointed out as saying something wrong or makes not sense, then he quickly states the opposite emphatically.  That is his pattern.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

When Bob H talks it reminds me of this exchange from When Harry Met Sally:

 

Harry: You were a good friend of umm...

Sally: Amanda's. I can't believe you can't remember her name.

Harry: What do you mean? I remember, Amanda right? Amanda Rice.

Sally: Reese.

Harry: Reese, right! That's what I said!

 

 

That is Bob Heironimus in a nut shell.  He makes a statement, he is pointed out as saying something wrong or makes not sense, then he quickly states the opposite emphatically.  That is his pattern.

 

BD

 

 

Similarly, Backdoc...sometimes when Bob H talks, it reminds me of this exchange between infants...

 

Chuckie: "Goo goo gaa gaa"

 

Bobby: "Goo goo gaa gaa...the horse never bucked a day in it's life....goo goo gaa gaa....the horse bucked Roger off."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...