Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admin

Thoughts About Munns' Book - " When Roger Met Patty " (2)

Recommended Posts

Guest

BrentD alerted Kit, who contacted Al Jr. and told him of the valuable commodity in his father's office and its significance. Kit offered his and Bill's expertise to authenticate the suit but at some point after that Al Jr. turned on Kit and threatened him with legal action if he didn't cease and desist. Complicated to be sure. But the funny thing is that all this fuss is not over the Patty suit and Kit knows that, which is why he backed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Following your script, two questions...

 

1 - If I was unable to authenticate the suit, how then would I become satisfied it was not the suit and then for some related reason run-lolita-run back to Japan?

 

2 - If not the suit, what do you suppose all the fuss was over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

Which is exactly what Bob Heironimus reported - rehearsing at the privacy of Patterson's home in the Ahtanum Valley.

 

 

 And zero rehearsals at the film site. No angle tests, no distance tests, no lighting tests, no tests to see if Heironimus could negotiate the sandbar...all of which could have totally ruined his film...and then they all pack up and go home after not even a practice run on the spot. Welcome to the world of Heironimus Bosh!

 

 

The head shape was a worthy effort, yet Chris Walas did far better when he was only 23 with his very first attempt at an ape suit using less than $200...

 

 

My goodness. Look at the sheer size of that head on the Walas suit. It's huge. Way oversized...which exactly as it had to be in order for the actor in side to fit in it.

 

For future reference for people who don't understand Bill's analysis, it is the unique combination of the shape and size that is the factor in the Patty head quandary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 And zero rehearsals at the film site. No angle tests, no distance tests, no lighting tests, no tests to see if Heironimus could negotiate the sandbar...all of which could have totally ruined his film...and then they all pack up and go home after not even a practice run on the spot. Welcome to the world of Heironimus Bosh!

 

Lighting tests. Awesome.

 

Had you bothered not to dismiss Harvey Anderson's experiences dealing with Patterson's lack of knowledge regarding camera work, you could get past the bear fight of understanding that Patterson having Heironimus standing around in a Bigfoot suit, walking back and forth, having a smoke break while Patterson fiddles the f-stop, check the lighting meter is far more the danger of ruining his film with anyone at all being able to come along.

 

From DeAtley's end of the hoax in particular, having to develop multiple takes from which to select the one they are most happy with is as much suicide to the hoax effort as Patterson spending all afternoon with Heironimus in a national forest in a Bigfoot suit.

 

Forget the absurd three weeks Gimlin wants us to believe he had Heironimus' horse at Bluff Creek. The time frame between that first filming and the film announcement has given them ample time recognize any flaws in the attempt and correct if necessary.

 

Hoaxers have everything to gain from first attempting to film the event as a they describe it, a brief encounter. If they succeed, they avoid all the real dangers of exposure they would face by attempting multiple takes, both filming and developing.

 

This is where Patty worship has invented secret squirrel porno developer to try and deal with the glaring failure of the PGF provenance. But it is purely that - a Bigfootery invented meme.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Lighting tests? Yes, you know, have Heironimus walk 100 ft in front of him and see what its like in that sunlight with it shining down and then see if another angle in the opposite direction would be better at hiding things.  How complicated would that be to do? Not complicated at all. 10 minutes or less. And if you think Patterson was worried about somebody coming along then why pick that spot in the first place? Why on earth would you think Patterson was worried about somebody coming along while he's rehearsing with Heironimus but not worried when he's taking much more time to lay down a very good, very convincing fake trackway???

 

Patterson goes all that way down there after making his masterpiece suit...but doesn't even practice any run throughs, any alternate angles and distances (don't even need to film them)....and then comes home without knowing what on earth he's captured on camera and tells the newspaperman before it was developed (your man Heironimus agreed).

 

As for your 'secret squirrel porno developer' jibe, why don't you show us a film lab that has the proof the film was developed at a time other than Patterson said. You don't have any such proof that so and so developed the footage on so and so date. You have nothing that disproves Patterson's development timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Announcing to the Times-Standard that they have filmed Bigfoot is part of the staging of the event, something that occurred weeks after actually filming Heironimus at Bluff Creek, as was the case with the laying of the tracks, which most likely occurred on the 20th, when Patty was said to be encountered, but the man in the actual suit was weeks gone.

 

Making a track way that was reported to be about 20 prints is a completely different matter than running multiple scenes and angles with a man in a suit. Should someone come across them with Bob standing aside, head piece off while Patterson sets up the next scene, they are screwed. If someone were to come across them while making and also cast tracks, they can make any excuse they like which will easily work with their cover story. Did you see the Bigfoot we just saw??? Here are it's prints! The risk of someone coming along who could distinguish fabricating a track way from simply documenting one is completely different from what little observational powers are needed to recognize men filming another man in a suit.

 

The gains and losses of filming the hoax as an actual brief encounter and then developing in the proprietary and safe process are in no manner comparable to the risks taken on by a staged film scene shoot involving multiple scene setups and also developing multiple rolls of takes allowing however many lab technicians to be able to see the guts of your hoax. If your staged encounter method fails, you can always redo it and alter methods as necessary.

 

Once you've exposed your hoax to witnesses at the scene or film lab, that's it, you are done and the hundreds of thousands you seek to make are done.

 

Roger Patterson could have been capable of such foolishness, but not Al DeAtley and it is Al DeAtley's money that is making the filming possible from suit construction to film development.   


The Bluff Creek area is the established Bigfoot Central from the outset of the modern phenomenon. The hoaxers have the support of the Times-Standard managing editor, Laurence "Scoop" Beal. It is fresh with the then unknown hoaxed tracks of BCM/Bluff Creek using Wallace stompers. It provides the geography and land features with the creek bottom, bend and surface that allow for the perfect explanation how the men could be so lucky where all others had failed with the noise of the creek and being hidden in sight line by the down fallen tree at the bend.

 

And Patterson never went back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Heironimus himself said they announced the film before it was developed. You know this. If you bust the film announcement/developing as bogus then you have to bust Bob Heironimus as bogus as well. There is no way around it. 

 

You aren't thinking like a hoaxer. Why bother to make your film in a spot where you are looking over your shoulder every five minutes. That's not what a hoaxer would do. There would be hundreds, if not thousands, of better spots to hoax a film than where it was actually filmed.

 

I'd like you to tell me how long you think it would take to make 20 really good footprint tracks. I am concluding it would only take about half an hour to mess around figuring different angles, distances, seeing what light is best and a couple of run throughs etc. Do you think 20 good tracks could be done in less time?

 

By the way, if they were all worried about potential interlopers, why did Bob Heironimus say they put the suit on him right there and then by the road, out in the open? According to him it was a struggle to get the suit on, and yet there they were on the road and listening out for cars coming. Surely it would have been better to cross the creek while all 3 were on horseback and then put the suit on Heironimus in the safety of the tree line that we see in the background or in the cover of the big tree pile? Doesn't make sense to do the suit change out in the open by the road.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Heironimus himself said they announced the film before it was developed. You know this. If you bust the film announcement/developing as bogus then you have to bust Bob Heironimus as bogus as well. There is no way around it. 

 

This is Heironimus' misunderstanding from being told P&G were going back to work on the tracks. This does not equate the actual laying and fabrication of the tracks. For Patterson and Gimlin to film an encounter then lay out the track way for it weeks later, it would have been necessary for them to go back after Heironimus departed and in some way mark and document where Heironimus walked along the path so as to be able to make something corresponding with it when they returned weeks later to stage the event.

 

You aren't thinking like a hoaxer. Why bother to make your film in a spot where you are looking over your shoulder every five minutes. That's not what a hoaxer would do. There would be hundreds, if not thousands, of better spots to hoax a film than where it was actually filmed. 

 

 

Geography, access, creek bend, association as Bigfoot central, tracks found only at late August unknown then to have been a hoax, and a newspaper actively co-operating with your hoaxing...

 

...only one of those - the Bluff Creek area.

 

I'd like you to tell me how long you think it would take to make 20 really good footprint tracks. I am concluding it would only take about half an hour to mess around figuring different angles, distances, seeing what light is best and a couple of run throughs etc. Do you think 20 good tracks could be done in less time?

 

 

Firstly, all twenty don't need to be really good. Of the ten recorded by Titmus, only half had any manner of clarity to them. Secondly, Patterson had had years of track hoaxing experience at that point. Finally, how fast he can do them is not the issue. Should Patterson have someone come along while Patterson and Gimlin are making tracks, how is that person going to be readily able to discern that Patterson is creating the prints, not just recording them?

 

By the way, if they were all worried about potential interlopers, why did Bob Heironimus say they put the suit on him right there and then by the road, out in the open? According to him it was a struggle to get the suit on, and yet there they were on the road and listening out for cars coming. Surely it would have been better to cross the creek while all 3 were on horseback and then put the suit on Heironimus in the safety of the tree line that we see in the background or in the cover of the big tree pile? Doesn't make sense to do the suit change out in the open by the road.

 

 

I would expect getting the suit on as quickly and properly as possible was the main concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yeah properly, right by the road for passersby to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

The person was neither a close friend nor a stranger to me. It was by their relationship to the owner of the suit that I accepted them as being legitimate. 

 

 

 

kit has also said this, regarding "the person who sent him the video"...

 

 

 I don't claim to have viewed the suit in person, but rather video on smartphone.

 

Just having been able to get that far was more than I could have hoped for in the beginning. I no longer have access to that person,

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/2546-was-bob-heironimus-patty-pt-1/page-73

 

 

Really? Why can you "no longer contact" this relative of Al DeAtley's? :)

 

 

kit has also revealed this "information" regarding his alleged Skype call of the "Patty suit"...

 

 

I have never written a who-what-where-why about anyone or any place regarding the suit and I never will. What contact I did have was through Skype and with an explicit agreement that nothing would be recorded. At the time I did not have an iphone or any knowledge of how to screenshot using Skype. In Japan, any device like a cell phone or smartphone makes a loud shutter sound when taking photos of any kind so that one can not do so discreetly. It's related to the social problem here of creepy old bastards doing bad things on trains. I was not in Japan at the time, but using a Japanese device on a wifi connection while on Vancouver Island. 

 

The person that showed me the suit was not a buddy, not a friend, not someone I sent. That person did not at the time seem particularly interested in having photos of the suit as it was not something particularly relevant to them. The way I found this person was completely by happenstance in a way I will not detail on the Internet.

 

I will not give you nor anyone else outside of Bill Munns and the few others I've worked together with on the situation any more information than this.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/47878-searching-what-is-required/page-11

 

 

Later, I'll re-post these statements in the 'Bombshell' thread. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Yeah properly, right by the road for passersby to see.

 

Right by the road.

 

IaS, can you please indicate where you think Bob was during the suit being put on and where you think the road was in relation to that position?

 

Bigbluffcreek3.jpg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This is Heironimus' misunderstanding from being told P&G were going back to work on the tracks. 

 

 

No it isn't. Heironimus was asked if they announced the footage before it was developed. He replied "yes". No misunderstanding at all. Just a self mess up because his entire fairytale is all messed up.

 

In his own words Bob Heironimus replied in the affirmative when asked if the footage was announced before it was developed. There is no way you will get past that blunder. It's done. No 'misunderstanding'. He had told so many tales by then that he forget what nonsense he came up with before. As you yourself admitted, Heironimus doesn't have much guile and we all know he failed to get his many different stories straight.

 

 

Geography, access, creek bend, association as Bigfoot central, tracks found only at late August unknown then to have been a hoax, and a newspaper actively co-operating with your hoaxing...

 

 

Geography? Access? Got that in Washington State. No problem. Creek bend? What was essential about that? You can come round a bend in a forest or river in lots of places in Washington State. Got that in Washington State. No problem.

 

Washington State newspapers printed bigfoot stories and some would be more familiar with Roger Patterson than any in California. No problem.

 

With regards to the track finds in late August in Bluff Creek, according to Heironimus he had already been asked to wear 'the suit' by then. Patterson and Gimlin were searching in Washington State at the time and yet did not get Heironimus to play Patty in Washington State. Are you saying that all along Patterson and Gimlin knew Green and Dahinden would find tracks near Bluff Creek in August 1967 and get word through to Patterson??? Are you saying that Patterson was behind the Blue Creek Mountain tracks??

 

You can't really make a couple of perfect tracks and then go splodge who cares with the other 18. That wouldn't be very convincing. Lyle Laverty took pictures of non cast tracks that have great clarity so its obvious that more than 1 or 2 were really good. Titmus was more interested in casting consecutive tracks rather than finding the ones with the best quality. Patterson already made casts of good quality tracks so there was no point in Titmus doing what had already been done.

 

In your estimation how long would it have taken to have fabricated 20 or so tracks including a number of really good ones? I have already told you my estimation of about half an hour to do a few different angle, distance and lighting judgement calls and for a couple of practice run throughs. I wouldn't expect more than half an hour to do that. Do you think about 20 tracks, with some really good ones in amongst, them could be done in under half an hour?

 

 

 Patterson had had years of track hoaxing experience at that point.

 

 

 

Source? Proof? Hearsay won't do. Show me years and years worth of pictures of actual hoaxed casts that Roger Patterson is alleged to have come up with. I'm taking it you have dozens of Patterson's hoaxed tracks on your files seeing as you say this with such certainty? Show them to us all then.

 

 

Finally, how fast he can do them is not the issue

 

 

Yes it is the issue. The issue is you saying Patterson didn't want to spend any time practising things at Bluff Creek because he was worried about being spotted by somebody coming along....but then conversely you think Patterson also faked all the footprints there too, which would have taken a considerable time as well and with the risk of being caught in the act so both add up to the same amount of risk. Actually the risk with the tracks is worse as it was a Friday afternoon, in hunting season, that the tracks would have been hoaxed.

 

 

Should Patterson have someone come along while Patterson and Gimlin are making tracks, how is that person going to be readily able to discern that Patterson is creating the prints, not just recording them?

 

 

What type of equipment or tools do you suppose would be needed to fabricate the tracks we see from the pictures and how would you explain Patterson throwing these tools down and beginning to whistle innocently while one track remains only half made and the track line ends at his feet??

 

 

I would expect getting the suit on as quickly and properly as possible was the main concern.

 

 

But not out in the open on the road. How long would it have taken the three of them to cross the creek and ride to that tree line in the background? It was only about 100 yards or so to the tree line from the road so really, what would have been time consuming about going to the tree line in the background and have Heironimus get the suit on him there? Any noise coming up the road and all they have to do is hide Heironimus in the tree line. Out in the open where the road is? That's unnecessarily risky. More to the point, how did Bob Heironimus get across the creek after changing into the suit by the road? Bob Heironimus mentioned nothing about struggling across the very wet Bluff Creek. He said the creek bed was dry.

 

Right by the road.

 

IaS, can you please indicate where you think Bob was during the suit being put on and where you think the road was in relation to that position?

 

Bigbluffcreek3.jpg

 

The tree debris where Patterson began shooting is to the left of the picture and the road is that smooth area on the bottom right of the pic just below the rocky creek bank. The road went all the way parallel to the creek to the left of the picture where the tree debris is and then beyond that. The spot where Patterson began filming and where Heironimus claims he had the suit put on him is not shown in that picture, but thanks for revealing to everyone how much better it would have been to have suited up Heironimus in the tree line or bushes and away from the prying eyes of anyone coming up the road. Well done.

 

Edit to fix typos.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

No it isn't. Heironimus was asked if they announced the footage before it was developed. He replied "yes". No misunderstanding at all. Just a self mess up because his entire fairytale is all messed up.

 

In his own words Bob Heironimus replied in the affirmative when asked if the footage was announced before it was developed. There is no way you will get past that blunder. It's done. No 'misunderstanding'. He had told so many tales by then that he forget what nonsense he came up with before. As you yourself admitted, Heironimus doesn't have much guile and we all know he failed to get his many different stories straight.

 

That is precisely what they claim to have done. Can you show in the exact quotes that Bob Heironimus is not making reference to the story as told by Patterson. The same quibbling happens with Bob trying to explain the difference between what happened with the horses as commonly told and what did not happen.

 

Early-article3.jpg

Early-article4.jpg

 

Geography? Access? Got that in Washington State. No problem. Creek bend? What was essential about that? You can come round a bend in a forest or river in lots of places in Washington State. Got that in Washington State. No problem.

 

Washington State newspapers printed bigfoot stories and some would be more familiar with Roger Patterson than any in California. No problem.

 

 

Once again, what Washington State did not have was a newspaper managing editor that was complicitly supporting hoaxing to create publicity as was the case with the Times-Standard and Laurence "Scoop" Beal.

 

With regards to the track finds in late August in Bluff Creek, according to Heironimus he had already been asked to wear 'the suit' by then. Patterson and Gimlin were searching in Washington State at the time and yet did not get Heironimus to play Patty in Washington State. Are you saying that all along Patterson and Gimlin knew Green and Dahinden would find tracks near Bluff Creek in August 1967 and get word through to Patterson??? Are you saying that Patterson was behind the Blue Creek Mountain tracks??

 

 

Patterson and Gimlin being at Mt. St. Helens during the long weekend, the very same weekend it so happens, that the BCM/Bluff Creek tracks turn up is an unverified claim as much as Gimlin claiming to be at Bluff Creek three weeks and Roger claiming one. You can not confirm they were in fact at Mt. St. Helens and it serves as much as an alibi to have them nowhere near BCM and Bluff Creek. Patterson having some manner of involvement with BCM is something I am very much putting on the table. He had already an established relationship with Wallace at that point and in Wallace's own letters he writes of Patterson and DeAtley visiting his home in Toledo, WA. Wallace wrote that having met DeAtley he learned that he was financing Roger. What is Al DeAtley doing in Wallace's home, one of the Bigfooter radicals he claims to despise?

 

Source? Proof? Hearsay won't do. Show me years and years worth of pictures of actual hoaxed casts that Roger Patterson is alleged to have come up with. I'm taking it you have dozens of Patterson's hoaxed tracks on your files seeing as you say this with such certainty? Show them to us all then. 

 

 

Yet it does for you...

 

 

 It has been claimed by one of Bob Heironimus' friends that Heironimus liked to get drunk and jump out on people in the Yakima area pretending to be bigfoot. Hmmmmmm.

 

 

Welcome to Bigfootery.

 

Yes it is the issue. The issue is you saying Patterson didn't want to spend any time practising things at Bluff Creek because he was worried about being spotted by somebody coming along....but then conversely you think Patterson also faked all the footprints there too, which would have taken a considerable time as well and with the risk of being caught in the act so both add up to the same amount of risk. Actually the risk with the tracks is worse as it was a Friday afternoon, in hunting season, that the tracks would have been hoaxed.

 

 

Patterson had no qualms about fabricating and filming Bigfoot tracks at Bluff Creek without any concern for being discovered, particularly since this is precisely what he said to Grover Krantz he did at Bluff Creek only days prior to the alleged filming date...

 

“The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).†- Grover Krantz, Big Footprints - p. 32

 

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/roger-pattersons-cast-display/

 

Patterson can say the exact same thing to anyone who should come across him on the 20th as he would have a few days earlier when track-faking, if that ever even actually occurred.

 

You are not ready for me today.

 

The tree debris where Patterson began shooting is to the left of the picture and the road is that smooth area on the bottom right of the pic just below the rocky creek bank. The road went all the way parallel to the creek to a point beyond the left of the picture where the tree debris. The spot where Patterson began filming and where Heironimus claims he had the suit put on him is not shown in that picture, but thanks for revealing to everyone how much better if would have been to have suited up Heironimus in the tree line and away from the prying eyes of anyone coming up the road. Well done.

 

 

 

You understand that the road used which goes by Bluff Creek is the hillside road from which Dahinden took his "aerial" photo and the road from which Jim McClarin accessed the film site by jeep and that the old gravel road was an out of use old logging road? No, you do not...

 

Map.jpg

 

Leiterman-PGF-Comparison-with-Aerial-med

 

MUNNS+Animation+Start.jpg

 

SceneMapAdjusted1.jpg

 

You are not ready for me today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

IaS, can you please indicate where you think Bob was during the suit being put on and where you think the road was in relation to that position?

 

 

He was at Wendy's.  Wendys2_zpsnddtdsbm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
 

 

I think it is a likely scenario that Bob H. was filmed, or was going to be filmed, wearing a Morris gorilla suit for Roger's Documentary....but then along came the call from John Green, about the fresh trackway discovered in the Bluff Creek area, and the Patty footage....and the Documentary was shelved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...