Jump to content
salubrious

Was Bob Heironimus Patty? Pt 2

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

Backdoc,

 

Don't forget Gimlin, they also decided to keep his share. For their hoax theory, that's like the three of them robbin' a bank...an tellin' Bob...we're just goin' to keep your share Bob.  ;)

 

An a $1,000.00 for 10 minutes in a suit...think about that, that's like $7,000.00 today ! There's so much wrong with that it ain't even funny !

 

Pat... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
2 hours ago, PBeaton said:

Backdoc,

 

Don't forget Gimlin, they also decided to keep his share. For their hoax theory, that's like the three of them robbin' a bank...an tellin' Bob...we're just goin' to keep your share Bob.  ;)

 

An a $1,000.00 for 10 minutes in a suit...think about that, that's like $7,000.00 today ! There's so much wrong with that it ain't even funny !

 

Pat... 

 

 

That is a good point. Cheating Bob Heironimus AND cheating Gimlin.  

 

Funny thing is the radio interviewer (as found on Youtube) states to him $1,000 back in 1967 was a lot of money.  Heironimus then says, "A lot of money!" emphatically.  This is typical Heironimus.  Anything which is said to him he just emphatically agrees with like it proves his point all along.  Clearly the point is most people would not keep quiet if they were cheated out of $7,000 today. In fact, it would have been more believable if Heironimus acted more like this made-up pretend conversation:

 

Q:  "So you were the man in the suit?"

 

A: " Yes,  they offered to pay me $1000 to do it. I did.  At first the money wasn't rolling in so I wasn't sure if they would pay me that $1,000 they promised. As soon as the money rolled in Al and Roger showed up with the money and said, 'Here is the $1,000 we promised.  Now you said you would keep quiet. We expect you to keep your word.'   Well, I kept my word all these years until recently when Long came around. Then I thought, well, I cant live this lie any longer.  So I told him I was the man in the suit.  Al wasn't stupid. He made sure all of us-Me, Roger and Gimlin- got our payola on this thing.  Because he knew if he didn't share, any one of us would sink that ship"

 

 

Now that made- up scenario above would at least be believable.  We can't even believe Bob kept his mouth shut as he ADMITS in his made up story he showed the people at the bar the next day the suit in the car.  Then somehow discovers his morals and decide to then return to keeping his word again for decades later.

 

Yes I forgot under the hoax scenario he not only screws over Heironimus but also Gimlin.  Great point.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
On 10/18/2016 at 10:38 AM, Backdoc said:

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

 

That is a very good post. Patterson lived in the same house for the next five years after the film was taken and before he died, so while Roger may have been away at times - Heironimus could have found Roger with little trouble. Once again it appears that Bob H has added another off-the-top of his head ti-bit while not thinking how silly it sounds.

23 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

That is a good point. Cheating Bob Heironimus AND cheating Gimlin.  

 

Funny thing is the radio interviewer (as found on Youtube) states to him $1,000 back in 1967 was a lot of money.  Heironimus then says, "A lot of money!" emphatically.  This is typical Heironimus.  Anything which is said to him he just emphatically agrees with like it proves his point all along.  Clearly the point is most people would not keep quiet if they were cheated out of $7,000 today.

 

The reason is there was never to be a payday. Heironimus invented a payday when he got the idea inventing a story he could sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePhaige

Has this fool not be sufficiently debunked long ago? He was/is controlled opposition obviously lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

if CNN right now had a story run about the PGF, they would have Heironimus on the speed dial.  

 

Bob H. Has not been debunked where it matters.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
53 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

^^^

 

if CNN right now had a story run about the PGF, they would have Heironimus on the speed dial.  

 

Bob H. Has not been debunked where it matters.

 

BD

 

It's coming!  There will be no doubt soon that Heironimus lied. That polygraph garbage was a sham and what I have seen will prove it.

 

I always wondered why Kitakaze seemed very co-operative to ask Heironimus at my request if he was on heart and/or blood meds when he took his polygraph - went on to say that he would be talking to Heironimus soon.  Its now been a couple of years it seems since that time and when I mentioned it to Kitakaze on this forum ... he responded that he doesn't have to ask Heironimus anything. I have since had a feeling that Kitakaze also knows Heironimus ran a con-job, but he should have just came out and said so because in time it may cause others to wonder just how much Kitakaze really knew when he was still trying to sell the Bob H as telling the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Hit him with your purse, Bigfoothunter!!!

 

Debunk polygraphs til the day is long....

 

I await your findings :)

 

[edited to add that polygraphs and BF stories hold no weight in the real world]

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

"[edited to add that polygraphs and BF stories hold no weight in the real world]"

 

Much like some opinions !

Share this post


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

[edited to add that polygraphs and BF stories hold no weight in the real world]

 

Applied science and rules of physics hold weight in the real world, so having said that once again  -  When are you going to show how someone who puts on a 15" wooden stomper can make deep impressions in the ground by simply stepping hard where other men can only walk atop of it? We have all been waiting your findings for a very long time now.

 

track depth compared to shoe prints_zpsupkoc39y.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Applied physics and science are not on your side, Bill.

 

You're the bigfoothunter. Hunt a bigfoot and focus less on fake footprints in the dirt.

 

In the meantime I await your debunking of BobH's polygraph.

 

You're the investigator, I'm the observer. Keep in mind that your opinion carries as much weight as mine :)

 

Even if you manage to take down BobH, you still have to prove Bigfoot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

lets forget physics battles and just keep it simple.

 

show us a suit in a same or similar manner as the PGF.  It's been 50 years.  

 

1) 1967 era materials

2) $200 cost today

3). 2 cowboys did it, so can others 

 

 

cue the Crickets Chirping

 

BD

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Applied physics and science are not on your side, Bill.

 

You're the bigfoothunter. Hunt a bigfoot and focus less on fake footprints in the dirt.

 

In the meantime I await your debunking of BobH's polygraph.

 

You're the investigator, I'm the observer. Keep in mind that your opinion carries as much weight as mine :)

 

Even if you manage to take down BobH, you still have to prove Bigfoot.

 

I will address your Jibber-Jabber in the order it was given ....

 

Footprints - 

The rule:  When applying a consistent force (weight), the greater the surface area the shallower the print. This is an applied rule of Physics. It's the same rule that debunks the nonsense you posted saying ' A person can make deeper tracks by stepping harder '.  The Internet is loaded with links that explain this simple rule in various ways.  Here is one such link ...      https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+snow+shoes+work%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

Once again you have been called out to show proof of what you claimed concerning how walking harder would make deep footprints in the soil that other men can only walk atop of and all you have answered with is this ridiculous statement, "Hunt a bigfoot and focus less on fake footprints in the dirt." 

 

Bob H's Polygraph -

Bob H made statements as to how the film was hoaxed and it has been said that he passed a polygraph to prove that all he has said is true. Even a novice investigator would know that if Bob H passed a polygraph as being completely truthful about his account of the hoaxing of the PGF, then the sand in Bluff Creek is white - Patterson filmed from atop of his horse - and the creek was dry. And by the way ... haven't you not said that you do not believe Bob H was the subject in Roger's film.  If so, then you already know that Bob H's polygraph has been debunked.

 

Your opinion Vs mine -

Bigfoothunter:  When applying a consistent force (weight), the greater the surface area the shallower the print. This is an applied rule of Physics.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+snow+shoes+work%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

McSquatch:  To make tracks deep into the ground that other men can only walk atop of only needs someone to step harder

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Now post the link that supports the nonsense you stated!

 

 

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator
16 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Applied physics and science are not on your side, Bill.

 

Even if you manage to take down BobH, you still have to prove Bigfoot.

 

 

The thing is, BF really is proven. Its another matter entirely if you or anyone else will accept it.

 

In order to make the claim that BF is not proven or does not exist, you have to explain why Patty's joints don't line up with a human's joints. Bill Munns did an excellent analysis on this (available on YouTube); maybe you could start be debunking that. Please show your work- a simple 'I don't buy his explanation' is 100% insufficient.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

There is no Munns is wrong report. 

 

BD

Share this post


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

 

The thing is, BF really is proven. Its another matter entirely if you or anyone else will accept it.

 

In order to make the claim that BF is not proven or does not exist, you have to explain why Patty's joints don't line up with a human's joints. Bill Munns did an excellent analysis on this (available on YouTube); maybe you could start be debunking that. Please show your work- a simple 'I don't buy his explanation' is 100% insufficient.

 

When has McSquatch ever cared to prove anything other than his ability to merely use this forum to repeatedly state his chosen belief, which has nothing to do with trying to foster intelligent discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...