Jump to content
salubrious

Was Bob Heironimus Patty? Pt 2

Recommended Posts

Twist

That's not even a ball, it's a ball shaped bird, clearly a case of misidentification!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, Twist said:

That's not even a ball, it's a ball shaped bird, clearly a case of misidentification!

 

Or it is a cartoonist drawing his interpretation of a statement or thought bubble going over someone's head.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
text added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Its a snowball. As I recall she nailed Calvin big time after that one. Waterson is the master cartoonist in my book. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Money Talks and Bob H is full of Bull:

 

In all of the nonsense to top all nonsense of Bob Heironimus there is one thing he says that above all else will never pass the sniff test.  He has stated he was offered $1,000 to play bigfoot in the PGF.  We are to think he hates money so much that he shows THE suit the very next day after the PGF filming blowing any chance the hoax will sell and that he will ever get paid. Now put in perspective $1,000 back in 1967. The following is from the movie, In the Heat of the Night made in 1967!  

 

 

 

See the Clip at       3:40 the sherif states a couple of hundred dollars is more than he earns in a month

See the Clip at       5:30 Virgil Tibbs states he earns $162.39 a week!  Notice the sherifs reaction at 5:35

 

I can't believe a skeptic and defender of Bob H. can tell me after viewing this with a straight face Bob Heironimus is telling the truth.  He came forward because 'there was going to be payola on this thing'  Once you see the clip at the spot I have identified, there is just no way Bob H. would blow a chance in 1967 to earn a quick $1,000.  No way.

 

Look at the clip. Look at the amount in 1967 we are talking about here.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA
On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 4:29 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Sal:

 

Your encounter is just another bigfoot story.

 

I'm in no way required to accept it as truth.

You, personally, are not required by anyone to accept anything.

 

Which doesn't change that the animal's existence is pretty much confirmed.  Doesn't matter what you think.

 

Once again, enlightened thinkers about science know that science isn't about proof.  Proof is for the ignorant; those paying attention know that repeated consistent observations, explainable and explained by no other cause, tell us that there's a primate inhabiting North America that's not accepted by the scientific mainstream.  See, this is another cool thing about science:  doesn't matter who's doing it.  If the mainstream isn't, doesn't make the thing not real. Just means that the people doing the science have confirmed the existence of something the mainstream denies.  There is no law that the mainstream can't be where they are now:  behind the eight-ball.

Edited by DWA
To further rub it in the ignant scientific mainstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

^^^ You bumped my post from 11 days ago just to do your little science rant again?

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

^^^ You bumped my post from 11 days ago just to do your little science rant again?

 

 

 

You just bumped DWA's response from 10 to 11 days ago just to offer another meaningless response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

So much irony...

 

bfh have you contacted Long about BobH's claims?

 

I understand you have his (Long's) contact information.

 

Have you done anything beyond post here on the forum?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA
20 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

^^^ You bumped my post from 11 days ago just to do your little science rant again?

 

 

No, just to tell you the truth.  Why do you keep needing to hear it?  Why don't you just enjoy my tormenting you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
4 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

So much irony...

 

bfh have you contacted Long about BobH's claims?

 

I understand you have his (Long's) contact information.

 

Have you done anything beyond post here on the forum?

 

I have not contacted Long, but I am in  contact with someone who has spoken to Long and will await to see what they found out. And by the way - we were discussing Long's allegedly talking to Bob Gimlin - not Bob H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

BH, you've put forth the notion that Greg Long never actually interviewed Bob Gimlin. Like as of he set out to write a book in which the sole effort was investigative journalism, interviewing everyone he could find in connection to the film, the Yakima area and beyond. But when he got to Gimlin he decided to just ninja that part and make it up. As if Gimlin wouldn't then immediately once the book had come out made a statement through his lawyer that he was in fact never interviewed by Long and that what is presented as him in the book was a malicious fabrication by Long.

 

I have personally provided you with Long's phone number and contact information to allow you to directly go to him.

 

Crickets. BH silence.

 

No, you'll hide behind someone who has spoken to Long and see what you can try and feel out without the uncomfortable task of directly confronting him with your accusation. Calf-pecking par the game Bigfootery.

 

Gimlin lied to Long about the court case he was involved in when he could have easily cleared the matter up.

 

You need Long's actual communication to go away with a deflect, hey, let's say Long never actually spoke to Gimlin.

 

What manner of evidence do you think you can present that Long decided to go nefarious ninja when it came time to speak with Gimlin?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, kitakaze said:

BH, you've put forth the notion that Greg Long never actually interviewed Bob Gimlin. Like as of he set out to write a book in which the sole effort was investigative journalism, interviewing everyone he could find in connection to the film, the Yakima area and beyond. But when he got to Gimlin he decided to just ninja that part and make it up. As if Gimlin wouldn't then immediately once the book had come out made a statement through his lawyer that he was in fact never interviewed by Long and that what is presented as him in the book was a malicious fabrication by Long.

 

I have personally provided you with Long's phone number and contact information to allow you to directly go to him.

 

Crickets. BH silence.

 

No, you'll hide behind someone who has spoken to Long and see what you can try and feel out without the uncomfortable task of directly confronting him with your accusation. Calf-pecking par the game Bigfootery.

 

Gimlin lied to Long about the court case he was involved in when he could have easily cleared the matter up.

 

You need Long's actual communication to go away with a deflect, hey, let's say Long never actually spoke to Gimlin.

 

What manner of evidence do you think you can present that Long decided to go nefarious ninja when it came time to speak with Gimlin?

 

 

As I have posted - another work is coming out that will expose the BS that Long did. No need for any previews at this time. I will give you this hint - Heironimus won't be the only con-artist recognized in the mix.  Then I will have lots to say to you.   :)

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

When it comes to Long, kitakaze posted a link a bit back that had this little tidbit "As it turns out, some of the Yakima residents who were quoted by Greg Long in his book now say their stories and comments about Roger were distorted in his book. They say Long seemed to be on a mission to make Roger Patterson out to be a petty criminal."   Huh ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
4 hours ago, kitakaze said:

 

 

Gimlin lied to Long about the court case he was involved in when he could have easily cleared the matter up.

 

 

 

Q:   "Isn't it true you were accused of <this or that>?"

 

 

RESPONSE   "NO"

 

Meaning:  "Go jump in a lake.  I don't want to talk about what I was accused of as this was some BS that happened in the past and I was not implicated/ not guilty given a chance to explain it to the authorities. Thus I don't wish to revisit this to help your efforts to demean me"

 

Result:   Kit thinks Gimlin lied to the guy asking the Q.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

In a radio interview (I listened to again from the past) Heironimus was asked why he did not try harder to get his money. They spoke about how much $1000 was esp back in 1967.  Bob seemed to say he really had no way to find Roger to ask him for the money. He did say he approached Al DeAtley about it. Bob claims Al stated "that is between you and Roger"    Now I have to think as the money was rolling in the one man would could kill that golden goose was Heironimus.  He could come forward as the man in the suit and he could even say, "These witnesses even saw the suit in the trunk of the car at the local bar"    Al would have to know they better pay Heironimus or at least Al better pressure Patterson to pay him or the gravy train is dead.

 

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...