Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Admin

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

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

"kitakaze" post:

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?

 

---------------------------------------------------------

Kit,

Can Heironimus even describe how to get there?

"white as snow" Sure it is.

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

 

 

 

Patterson's story hasn't got anything to do with what Bob Heironimus messed up with live on air during the X Zone radio interview of August 6th 2007.

 

Bob Heironimus - "The reason I brought the suit home in the trunk of the car is because after they went back and made the tracks, they headed for town to announce that they had filmed the Bigfoot....They didn't want anybody seeing that...maybe taking a chance on somebody see it. So I brought it home in the trunk of the car."

 

Rob McConnell - " So you mean they announced that they filmed Bigfoot before the film was developed?"

 

Bob Heironimus-"Uh, yes."

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35026515/ART-Herroneous-vs-Herroneous

 

Nothing to do with following Patterson's story. Patterson didn't tell any story about wanting Heironimus out of there and away off home before going into town to announce the film. This is Heironimus's story of his own telling and he messed it up big time. To reject the filming timeline you must reject Bob Heironimus as well because he agreed in his own words live on air that the film was announced before it was developed.

 

 

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.

 

 

My goodness. So now Kitakaze's new theory is that Patterson was behind the Blue Creek Mountain tracks in California and he wasn't really off with Bob Gimlin searching in Washington State at all.

 

 

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

 

 

Grover Krantz said Patterson made his own track one time and he never passed it off as real. That has absolutely no bearing on making a line of 20 or so tracks, some of them extremely high quality, on the sandbar at Bluff Creek in the same spot he had just filmed his masterpiece suit and sent the suit wearer off home with. If somebody comes along and sees Patterson fabricating a trackway on the same spot he just filmed his suit masterpiece in action, the film is worthless and he has to do it all over again.

 

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...

 

 

No, it appears that you don't understand what Heironimus himself claimed..The road that Heironimus talks about which leads to the film spot is the road that was referenced in bigfoot lore from Titmus to Byrne to Hodgson. The road is the hard packed old logging road that paralleled the creek and which we can see in the overhead Dahinden shot and also in Bill Munns composite images of the first few frames of the PGF:

 

http://s172.photobucket.com/user/SweatyYeti/media/PGF%20Filmsite/compositelandscapePGFstart.jpg.html

 

 

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...

 

 

Bob Heironimus said in his own words live on air on the Jeff Rense show on 1st March 2004 -"We took the horses and the suit up the road to the place they had picked out for the filming. Got off the horses. We looked around there to see if anyone was around. Listened for any cars coming up the road, and heard nothing...and right there, they put the suit on me. Told me to go across this here dry creek bed"

 

Bob Heironimus claimed they put the suit on him at the road at the film spot by a dry creek. So are you seriously suggesting with a straight face that Heironimus was put into 'the suit' on the other road higher up on top of the hill where Dahinden took his picture? You seriously think Bob Heironimus had 'the suit' on him at the spot where Dahinden took the picture and he walked all the way down that hill in that suit to the sandbar, then crossed the 'dry' creek (which never runs dry by the way)??

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Neander,

Thanks for telling the whole story in context of what actually happened. The backstory barkers will continue to bark.

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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?

1- I was right on the money all along since you didn't deny any of my post. If I was wrong you would have said so. I'm sure you still think it was THE suit but I think you now have doubts, for whatever reason.

2 - All the fuss is over some sort of suit, but why must it be Patty? That's not very scientific to assume it was THE Patty suit.

ETA: Kit, you might as well spill the beans. If you renew your documentary it will not suffer for it. The bombshell is a dud after all.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

My theory is that the entire claim is 'made-up', Giganto. 

 

One of the main reasons why I think so, is based on BrentD's statements. He contradicts himself, and says a few things that are non-sensical. His story smells.

 

A 2nd reason is the total lack of anything substantive, from kit.

 

A 3rd reason is kit's claim of having "three confessions"...."one of them recorded".  It is a false claim. If he did actually have a recorded confession, by a principal....he would surely have let some of his skeptical pals hear it....yet none of them have ever claimed to have heard it. Another indicator of it being untrue....kit claims that the "confessors" told him Bob H. was Patty...and most everyone knows that is not the case. 

 

And if his 'confessions claim' is false...it would also have to be fabricatedUnlike with "seeing a suit".....one can't be mistaken about "having three confessions from principals of a hoaxed film".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Neander,

Thanks for telling the whole story in context of what actually happened. The backstory barkers will continue to bark.

Backdoc

 

 

No problem. It is important to get into context what Heironimus claimed. Forget what Kitakaze says. Heironimus made his own story up about taking the suit home and Heironimus claimed the suit was put on him right there at the road at the filmsite. The old road that Titmus, Byrne and others talked about in books. Titmus even said he thought this old road was where Patty herself came onto before crossing the creek. This old road we can see in the picture by Dahinden  and at the start of the PGF. Too bad for Heironimus that he said the creek was dry and never mentioned getting his feet wet or struggling across the creek with its considerable banks.

 

Edit. Just as a shout out to mods, maybe a lot of these posts including mine should be moved to the 'hoax' thread as they aren't really discussing Bill Munns' book. Sorry.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

Deleted and moved to the 'hoax' thread.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The problem is that you're speaking as if you know what the this "road" was that partially paralleled Bluff Creek. This "road" is an old dirt and gravel track which comes to an abrupt dead end, the likes of which P,G&H having a vehicle come on them unawares is essentially zero...

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.


 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

For the best information I could get on the old track that led to the Bluff Creek film site, I asked a friend who is an expert on the film site and surrounding areas, Bigfoot Books of Willow Creek owner Steven Streufert. The following is from an exchange on the subject...

 

kitakaze: What can you tell me about the "old road paralleling creek" leading up to the PG film site?

 

Steven Streufert: We know that was a dirt-gravel road track maintained along the creek.

KK: OK, McClarin spoke of jeeping in.

SS: We saw faint possible sign of one, but it's obliterated by the rock slide right at the film site.

 

Yes. McClarin took the creekbed road.

 

From the current bridge area 3 miles downstream.

 

SS: Just a dirt-gravel track needing annual maintenance. Not really a "road"

 

Green could not use it in 1968 June, it had been washed out in sections. They had to walk the rest of the way in there.

 

KK: Let's say Patterson's suiting up Heironimus within view of that track along the creekbed. What would you call the odds of someone driving up along and oops, they're busted? It has been argued having Heironimus suit up within sight of the road would easily expose them to people using the road.

 

SS: Very low. The workers were all downstream at Louse Camp and then up Onion Mountain Road. It would be more likely a random recreational hunter or hiker might find them. Where they were was rather remote at the time, without the upper road access down to the site. Easy hiding in the dense woods just off the creek bed, too.

 

KK: Do you think Roger chose a bad film site for concealing a hoax or for doing multiple takes and scenes?

 

SS: Would depend upon hunting season. It was late in the year for recreation and camping. There is no fishing to be had up that far. Why would anyone go up there then? Workers were busy elsewhere.

Plus, they'd hear a vehicle coming from about a half mile away. Remember... the road was a dead end dirt track that led nowhere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

1- I was right on the money all along since you didn't deny any of my post. If I was wrong you would have said so. I'm sure you still think it was THE suit but I think you now have doubts, for whatever reason.

2 - All the fuss is over some sort of suit, but why must it be Patty? That's not very scientific to assume it was THE Patty suit.

ETA: Kit, you might as well spill the beans. If you renew your documentary it will not suffer for it. The bombshell is a dud after all.

 

G, you should stick with photogrammetry as subtlety is not your strong suit. I'm not interested in confirming or denying anything for you, only having you follow your theories through logically.

 

You've just gone from this...

 

 

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.

 

 

To this...

 

I'm sure you still think it was THE suit but I think you now have doubts, for whatever reason.

 

 

So first you have me knowing I didn't really find the suit and backing off, to me thinking it is the suit, but having doubts.

 

G, the only alternative for that suit is a custom replica the owner had created for them and having those closest to them think it was real. The circumstances make it extremely unlikely.

 

My backing off was as much as reaching an impasse for access and sinking years of my life into a documentary while sacrificing far more important things in life, and rather than coming to think what I found was not real, the opposite - wanting to do as much as I could to make sure the real thing did not go up in smoke.

 

I'm not interested in spilling the beans publicly as opposed to private circles because not only would it hurt my documentary, it would hurt the ultimate resolution of the PGF as well. I'm quite content to have a small subculture of fanatics think I am el diablo and making the whole thing up while things progress out of the public eye.

 

That's how it happened with Wallace, that's how it will happen with the PGF. It's about who passes and when now. Once the profits and legacy of the PGF are no longer doing what they were intended to do, and it becomes more desirable, like with the Wallace family, to show what was actually going on with absolutely not the slightest care how it bursts the dreams of PGF worshippers.

For me personally, no matter what you theorize about the who/what/why, the most satisfying thing on this side of the Pacific is skeptic or believer, the sleuths who look the hardest into this know that Brent's find was not a hoax and that it is only time until it sees the light of day, and that time getting closer and closer now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

And the "principals of the Film" who have "confessed to you"....claim Bob Heironimus was Patty.

 

And Bob Heironimus has actually said, within one interview:

 

"After the horse bucked him off".

 

"The horse supposedly bucked him off".

 

"The horse didn't buck him off"... :lol: ... 

 

BuckedUp%20Bobby1_zpssjbr7uvc.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Quote-mining addiction. Literally can not stop. Contextomy treatment...

 

 

The satisfaction I get at exposing quote-mining. You are trying to constrain Bob through quote-mining and distortion that he claims the entire PGF was filmed from horse back. Context restoration...

 

MK Davis: "... but I was under the impression that he (Heironimus) was saying that he (Patterson) took it from horseback so I thought this would apply."

 

Bob Heironimus: "He started the film, filming it on horseback, then supposedly the horse bucked him off and he ended up on foot."

 

MK: "What do you mean supposedly? Now you were there."

 

BH: "I was there. The horse didn't buck."

 

MK: "Oh, it didn't?"

 

BH: "No. It's just like I told you. He pushed the film up and down sitting on the horse with his hands to make it bouncy, then he bailed off the horse and (inaudible) on foot."

 

In bold is what you listened to when transcribing Bob's words and made the conscious choice to leave out. I take your quote-mining ice cream, thanks.

 

(4:15)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

G, the only alternative for that suit is a custom replica the owner had created for them and having those closest to them think it was real. The circumstances make it extremely unlikely.

 

 

Two problems with that scenario...

 

1) How do you make a replica of a suit which never existed, in the first place???

 

2) Who would have made it?? According to Brent's story, and kit's re-telling of it....the "hands and face of the suit are heavily deteriorated, due to age.

That would place it's creation back into the 70's. But, who are the potential candidates for the creator of the suit, at that point in time?

 

Certainly not Roger...he died in 1972. And it certainly wouldn't have been Bob Gimlin. Neither Phillip Morris nor Al DeAtley are possible candidates.

And, as far as it being a professional suit designer...who went looking for, and hired, a professional....(to replicate a suit which never existed)??

 

The fact of the matter is....there are fewer candidates for a creator of a "replica suit', than there are for the creator of an "original Patty suit".

 

The "replica suit" scenario is not even a plausible scenario. Therefore, if Patty was a real creature....then kit's story is, in all probability....a complete fabrication. Not a case of "mistaken identity". :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Of course Patterson reported the filming before he allegedly had the film developed.

 

He and Bob drove to town, called John Green and another reporter, and told them all about the film.

 

They also mailed the film that night, allegedly.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...