Jump to content

Wally - Walas Bigfoot Suit And Patty.


kitakaze
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

 

 

What is your source for the boot size of Heironimus?

 

Bob Heironimus physical characteristics - The Making of Bigfoot, p. 360.

 

Also, the Gimlin remark has been posted to death that he was talking about no one financing his trip. It's been established to my satisfaction that Bob Gimlin supplied his own gas - food - clothing - and horse regardless of who owned it.

 

 

Green: So you provided the truck and the...

Gimlin: Yeah, and the fuel, and my own horse and my own food. The agreement when we left on any of those investigations was that whatever Roger spent that we would split the expenses with me but Al DeAtley was backing Roger, because Roger didn't have a job at that particular time.

Green: So in fact he only financed Roger, he didn't finance your share at all?

Gimlin: No, he didn't finance my part of the trip at all. I had my own horse, my own equipment and my own food. I didn't expect somebody else to support me on that. It would be nice if I could have gotten part of the fuel pay paid and expenses on the truck.

 

"Roger got the horses lined up. I didn't take any of my own horses." - Bigfootology interview, Sasquatch Summit, April 2011

 

Thom: There are sources that you an... that you had Bob Heronimous's horse na... uh, named Chico at Bluff Creek.

 

Bob: Okay... I did have Bob Heronimous's horse because Roger had, apparently, borrowed that horse from Bob Heronimous. 'Cause I never got the horses together to go. Roger gathered up the horses...

 

 

That is right - no one financed Gimlin's trip. No one financed my traveling to Florida to spend a month fishing with my father in each of the last 10 years of his life. I  furnished my own transportation even when I rented a car that Hertz supplied me with. In other words Gimlin paid to go there - he financed his own food despite the grocery store selling it to him - and he financed taking the horse he used while there even if it was borrowed. Those were the things he was responsible for.  The context above that Gimlin explains the financing of the trip is not complicated. In other words .... DeAtley never paid for any of those things. Your playing on words and trying to make it seem like a conspiratorial lie doesn't past the laugh test and its an argument I would enjoy presenting on any venue so to make a fool out anyone for even attempting it.

dmaker

It would give me an idea of what you think a really, real bigfoot looks like. But guessing by your cranky reluctance to share, I can only imagine. 

 

 

You got your idea of what I find a really, real Bigfoot looks like when I described its appearance looking like Patty with the exception of it looking more tapered in the hips.

 

Like I said - your nonsense is very transparent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have posted many times that I took two photos once I saw the subject in my telescopic lens. The subject was moving up a mountain - was covered in a cinnamon colored fur - and very broad across its back. I have never sold the photo rights, and I share my experience with customers

 

 

 

Did you share your photos with Steph Florian during the filming of Sasquatch: The Legend With Bigfoot?

 

If yes what was her reaction and why was only your sketch included in the documentary?

 

How does the resolution of your 'bigfoot photo' compare to stills of the PGF Freeman or other 'bigfoot footage'?

 

 

I don't recall if she saw it or not or even if I had it with me. These are questions you should ask her. As I recall they asked to do a piece on my business ... they picked up some items they wanted to film and that is how it went. They were not given a full tour as they were limited on time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dmaker,

 

Right now there are people who are reading the Amazon reviews for When Roger Met Patty.   Kit has written a review of it giving his many listed reasons why he thinks Bill is wrong.  Can you please go on there and tell me where on that list he has put 1) I have the confession(s) or 2) I have seen the suit.   Kit has given reasons for why which I don't feel are reasonable. 

 

How reasonable do you feel it is these confession(s) and the fact Kit states he is a guy who has seen the suit are some kind of state secret outside the BFF?

 

You don't like what sweaty is doing.  I think the level of importance of the issue at hand allows for the reasonable Q sweaty is asking Kit. Don't you agree if Kit would answer the request Sweaty would stop. 

 

Finally, If I said my Grandfather was at Deley Plaza the day Kennedy was shot and had a film of the Book Depository Window showing Oswald shooting 3 shots clearly on the movie film, don't you think the magnitude of such a claim would have big meaning on a Who Shot JFK forums?  This is no different.

 

BD

 

 

Thanks, Backdoc. :)

 

It is an important line of questioning. kitakaze's "Bombshell" and "confessions" claims are big/significant claims...regarding a significant Film. To me, that adds-up to a significant issue....worthy of investigating...(via questioning).

 

The real problem here is the lack of answers....not the repeated questioning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the problem is the repeated questioning. You don't need to do this in evey thread in practically every post. I'm not saying the line of questioning is not important. I think it is. I am saying it is off topic in any thread other than the thread the claim was made in, and I, for one, and sick to death of seeing Sweaty repeat that question ad nasuem. He has been doing it constantly for a couple of years now. If I see that question asked repeatedly in any thread other than the bombshell thread, I will report it for off topic harassment. There are forum rules to keep threads on topic and there are rules to stop harassment. I am pretty sure this qualifies for both.

 

We'll let the moderators decide the issue then. 

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It would give me an idea of what you think a really, real bigfoot looks like. But guessing by your cranky reluctance to share, I can only imagine. 

 

dmaker,

 

Here's a photo I snapped quick of a really real black bear that popped out of the bushes not far from me down at the beach last year. What you see...an what I seen at the time...different. 

 

Pat...

 

What did you see at the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dmaker,

 

I got a much better look at the bear, by the time I got my camera up to snap this crappy pic as I walked away on the deer trails.

 

Pat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the problem is the repeated questioning. You don't need to do this in evey thread in practically every post. I'm not saying the line of questioning is not important. I think it is. I am saying it is off topic in any thread other than the thread the claim was made in, and I, for one, and sick to death of seeing Sweaty repeat that question ad nasuem. He has been doing it constantly for a couple of years now. If I see that question asked repeatedly in any thread other than the bombshell thread, I will report it for off topic harassment. There are forum rules to keep threads on topic and there are rules to stop harassment. I am pretty sure this qualifies for both.

 

We'll let the moderators decide the issue then. 

 

 

There is an easy way for you to stop the same questions from being asked over and over and over again, dmaker.....just ask kit the question yourself.

 

He says he's willing to answer questions about his Big, Bad Bombshells. :)

 

dmaker wrote:

 

 

 I am saying it is off topic in any thread other than the thread the claim was made in,

 

 

The "Patty suit" claim was not made in the 'Patty Suit Bombshell' thread. ;)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the actual subject of the grab bag the thread has become, I checked in with Chris today and he'll be sending me some more screen grabs from some various takes in the next few days. Whatever he sends, if any of it is in an angle or distance that isn't like what is seen in the PGF, I won't bother posting it, as the entire purpose for me is comparing to the PGF.


 

 

 

Also, the Gimlin remark has been posted to death that he was talking about no one financing his trip. It's been established to my satisfaction that Bob Gimlin supplied his own gas - food - clothing - and horse regardless of who owned it.

 

 

Green: So you provided the truck and the...

Gimlin: Yeah, and the fuel, and my own horse and my own food. The agreement when we left on any of those investigations was that whatever Roger spent that we would split the expenses with me but Al DeAtley was backing Roger, because Roger didn't have a job at that particular time.

Green: So in fact he only financed Roger, he didn't finance your share at all?

Gimlin: No, he didn't finance my part of the trip at all. I had my own horse, my own equipment and my own food. I didn't expect somebody else to support me on that. It would be nice if I could have gotten part of the fuel pay paid and expenses on the truck.

 

"Roger got the horses lined up. I didn't take any of my own horses." - Bigfootology interview, Sasquatch Summit, April 2011

 

Thom: There are sources that you an... that you had Bob Heronimous's horse na... uh, named Chico at Bluff Creek.

 

Bob: Okay... I did have Bob Heronimous's horse because Roger had, apparently, borrowed that horse from Bob Heronimous. 'Cause I never got the horses together to go. Roger gathered up the horses...

 

 

That is right - no one financed Gimlin's trip. 

 

 

Gimlin explicitly states to Green that he provided his own horse. He did not. He has told various sources various lines of bull for why that horse was provided for him.

 

Apologism. Go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Judge Judy likes to say,  "Beauty fades while (playing) dumb is forever."

 

Gimlin: Yeah, and the fuel, and my own horse and my own food. The agreement when we left on any of those investigations was that whatever Roger spent that we would split the expenses with me but Al DeAtley was backing Roger, because Roger didn't have a job at that particular time.

Green: So in fact he (DeAtley) only financed Roger, he didn't finance your share at all?

Gimlin: No, he (DeAtley) didn't finance my part of the trip at allI had my own horse, my own equipment and my own food. I didn't expect somebody else to support me on that. It would be nice if I could have gotten part of the fuel pay paid and expenses on the truck.

 

Example:

 

Green:  So in fact, your Father didn't finance your trip to Florida.

 

Bigfoothunter:  No, he didn't finance my part of the trip at all. I furnished my own car, my own gear, and my own food.

 

 

 

 

It's abundantly clear how the context of Gimlin's replies were given to Green in relation to DeAtley's involvement in financing the Bluff Creek trip. To assert differently is as menial and whacked in my view as attempting to make a case for conspiracy over Roger first seeing the creature squatted by the creek while Gimlin first saw the creature standing by the creek. McClarin says it best ...

 

Jim McClarin:  "Yes, the Internet has been great for communicating but the downside is that every person gets to have a say regardless of the merits of their arguments. And that's just one element of the asylum."

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's abundantly clear how the context of Gimlin's replies were given to Green in relation to DeAtley's involvement in financing the Bluff Creek trip. 

 

 

Yes, it is, when you don't very intentionally omit key information...

 

Green: So you provided the truck and the...

Gimlin: Yeah, and the fuel, and my own horse and my own food.

 

You provided the truck? Yes, I did. 

 

And the fuel.

 

And    *    my    *    own    *    horse.

 

And my own food.

 

 

 

 

Very telling that you removed where Green is talking about what Gimlin provided and seeking clarity on that, which Gimlin provides.

 

Truck. Fuel. Own horse. Own food.

 

You do not get to take this away. You do not get to sweep it under the rug.

 

Gimlin not changing his story is a lie believers pass amongst themselves to aid hero worship. 

Edited by kitakaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Gimlin explicitly states to Green that he provided his own horse. He did not. He has told various sources various lines of bull for why that horse was provided for him.

 

Apologism. Go.

 

 

"Gentlemen.....Start Your Horses"...

 

Bob Heironimus said...
 
00:31 - "The horse was gentle...it never bucked in it's life....it didn't know how to buck"
 
1:07 - "The horse bucked him off."
 
1:53 - "After the horse bucked him off."
 
2:03 - "The horse supposedly saw the creature...started bucking..."
 
4:21 - "....then supposedly the horse bucked him off."
 
 
(MK Davis - "What do you mean "supposedly", now you were there??")
 
 
4:28 - "I was there.....the horse didn't buck."
 

 

 

 

kit 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

 

Hey kit....I think you need to find some new "Principals" of the PGF. The ones you've been talking to don't even know who wore the suit.

 

 

Bonus apologism....kit wrote:

 

 

I have no problem with Heironimus saying Patterson shook the camera on horseback then continued filming on foot.

 

 

"Gentlemen.....Mount your horses....and then jump off your horses.....before they supposedly buck"... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When dealing with fundamentalists, always know that their first line of action is quote-mining. It's a devious and deceptive behaviour where they contextomize information and present it to you in a way that suits their purposes, knowing full well that they are not giving you the full picture.

 

Will the moderate observer take the time to actually check the conversation that Sweaty is quote-mining? No, apathy is what is being relied on here for the fundamentalist to get away with what they do.

 

Compare bellow the context of a phone only conversation in which MK Davis is trying to show images to insist Patty fell down to further his massacre agenda and Heironimus being on a telephone and having no idea what he is talking about. Heironimus relates to Davis both what Patterson alleges to have happened and what he directly observed...

 

 


It's not a Heironimus gaff at all. Not even slightly. The entire point Heironimus is making in the Bigfoot Live interview on this issue is that the horse Roger was on never threw him.


Here is the full audio again and the transcript. This in the beginning is MK arguing guano for Patty being shown falling down in the beginning of the film (which he says is because she was shot), and BH has no idea what he's talking about since MK is on the phone and in front of a computer which he is trying to get listeners to follow along with him looking at gifs, while Heironimus is just on the phone, not in front of a computer. He misinterprets what MK is trying to argue as thinking he's talking about Roger, not Patty, falling from his horse at the beginning of the film, the whole point of which he is arguing that Roger being bucked never happened!

The time mark for the entire conversation is 00:00 - 05:00...








 

Patty stumbles at the start

Tom Biscardi â€” We‘re going to go to #2.

65


MK Davis â€” number 6 down, Down Walk. That‘s the one I was

talking about earlier. … You‘re looking at the very first

part of the filming when the camera was so violent that it

was shaking all over the place.


Bob Heironimus â€” Can I elaborate on that? They borrowed one

of my horses; they took it up there. The horse was gentle

and never bucked in its life, didn‘t know how to buck. Roger

was sitting on that horse, he pushed the camera up and down

with his hands, his arms, that‘s where you get the bouncing

imaging.


MK Davis â€”Roger was on the horse, you say?


Bob Heironimus â€” Yes, he was.


MK Davis â€” OK, well, let‘s take a look at this first, then

I‘ll address that. … Now this is where it kind of pitches

forward, and it either goes down and catches itself with its

arms, or it had bent so far over it‘s almost down. It‘s a

stumble, or either it‘s putting something down, or whatever,

who knows, but â€”


Bob Heironimus â€” He said the horse bucked him off, remember?


Tom Biscardi â€” No, no, no. He‘s talking about the creature

now, meaning you in the suit. Either you fell down, or you

halfway almost fell down. And it looks like, at the last

frame â€”I wish you would have gone further on this, MK â€”


MK Davis â€”Well, he stopped filming. That was the end of walk

sequence number 1. When he begins, he lets go of the

trigger. You gotta remember that Patterson is looking

through a little bitty viewfinder. When this thing goes

down, he loses it, probably. You know, the profile

dramatically drops. He probably thinks it went down behind

the hill or whatever and he let go of the trigger.

………

This is at the earliest part of it, when it was so violent.

He‘s running and trying to catch up to it.



Bob Heironimus â€” After the horse bucked him off.


MK Davis â€”Did he take the film from horseback, is that what

you said?


Bob Heironimus â€” Yes. He was sitting on the horse at the

start of the film. The horse supposedly saw the creature,

started bucking, threw him off, bent his foot into the

stirrup, and he finally got loose and started â€”


MK Davis â€”So he started filming again?


Bob Heironimus â€” On foot, yes.

66


MK Davis â€”OK, well I have no problem with that, because I

was just going to show a clip that showed his own bootprint

on the sand. … Go down to the third to the last one, where

it says Track Animation.

You‘ll see that this is the actual, original wide-frame

version of the film. And when I say that, all the copies of

the film are cropped. They were done so to make the creature

appear larger. But this is the original wide field. So it

shows things around the edges that the crops don‘t show.

So you can see Roger Patterson‘s bootprint when it stops,

the second time. What he does, he‘s following the subject,

you see that big limb go by, he passes that big limb, and he

realizes he can‘t get an angle on it, so he turns around,

reverses himself, and when he back-tracks himself he allows

the camera to pan the ground. It picks up a track, a

barefooted track, in the right corner, OK, and then it picks

his own bootprint up, along the right side.


Tom Biscardi â€” Yup, that‘s quite amazing stuff.


MK Davis â€” Yeah, it‘s little-known facts about the film. It‘s

not a factor if he said he took it from standing on the

sand. But I was under the impression that he was saying he

took it from horseback, so I thought this would apply.


Bob Heironimus â€” He started the filming it on horseback, then

supposedly the horse bucked him off and he ended up on foot.


MK Davis â€”What do you mean supposedly? Now, you were there.


Bob Heironimus â€” I was there. The horse didn‘t buck.


MK Davis â€” Oh, it didn‘t.


Bob Heironimus â€” No, just like I told you. He pushed the film

[i.e., camera] up and down sitting on the horse with his

hands, to make it bouncy. Then he bailed off the horse and

did the [indistinct] rest on foot.


Philip Morris â€”You also understand that Bob would have been

looking out of a blind eye, because his right eye was fake.

So he‘s seeing out of his left eye.

http://www.pdf-archi...w-o-comment.pdf

 

 

 

Do not let these people get away with what they attempt to do. Do not allow your ability to review the facts on your own terms be taken away from you. 

 

Question them, question me, question everything.

 

You are dealing with people who have devoted themselves to a belief system that has nothing to do with empirical reality, only believe culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

 

 

 

It's abundantly clear how the context of Gimlin's replies were given to Green in relation to DeAtley's involvement in financing the Bluff Creek trip. 

 

 

Yes, it is, when you don't very intentionally omit key information...

 

Green: So you provided the truck and the...

Gimlin: Yeah, and the fuel, and my own horse and my own food.

 

You provided the truck? Yes, I did. 

 

And the fuel.

 

And    *    my    *    own    *    horse.

 

And my own food.

 

 

 

 

Very telling that you removed where Green is talking about what Gimlin provided and seeking clarity on that, which Gimlin provides.

 

Truck. Fuel. Own horse. Own food.

 

You do not get to take this away. You do not get to sweep it under the rug.

 

Gimlin not changing his story is a lie believers pass amongst themselves to aid hero worship. 

 

 

 

Even Green believes you are misstating the context of the answers.

 

The irony is that you will make up some of the most ridiculous excuses for Heironimus saying that Roger filmed from atop of his frightened horse, you will call a flood plane with a road passing over it a "creek", and sand being described as white as snow because of Heironimus wearing a black hood over his face for less than 60 seconds while attempting to make a conspiracy out of something so weak as Gimlin stating he had his own horse when making a point that DeAtley did not finance his portion of the trip.

 

Your position is quite pathetic actually. You point out the ridiculous things MK Davis has said to push his agenda which is little more than what you do in the opposite direction.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the problem is the repeated questioning. You don't need to do this in evey thread in practically every post. I'm not saying the line of questioning is not important. I think it is. I am saying it is off topic in any thread other than the thread the claim was made in, and I, for one, and sick to death of seeing Sweaty repeat that question ad nasuem. He has been doing it constantly for a couple of years now. If I see that question asked repeatedly in any thread other than the bombshell thread, I will report it for off topic harassment. There are forum rules to keep threads on topic and there are rules to stop harassment. I am pretty sure this qualifies for both.

 

We'll let the moderators decide the issue then. 

 

 

The Q asked by SY (repeatedly) IS important as you concede.  

 

When might you expect the answer to those important Q?

Are you at all concerned we still do not have the answer to the Q?

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"When might you expect the answer to those important Q?"   How in the world would I know? I highly doubt Kit is ever going to answer Sweaty. It would be nice if he would stop harassing Kit in every thread. Perhaps start a thread to harass Kit in. I'm tired of seeing it in every other thread. To be clear, this has nothing to do with me defending Kit. We don't know each other from a hole in the ground. I am just really, really, tired of Sweatys obsession.  It's becoming cringe worthy. 

 

"Are you at all concerned we still do not have the answer to the Q?"  Unsupported claims are the bedrock of bigfoot. It's pretty standard fare around here.

Edited by dmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

kitakaze wrote....apologetically, for Heironimus' gaff:..

 

 

 

 Heironimus relates to Davis both what Patterson alleges to have happened and what he directly observed...

 

 

Yes...Bob did exactly that.....as he screwed-up

 

Bob was not Patty.....yet you claim that one, or more "Principals of the PGF" have told you that Bob was Patty.

 

Something is seriously wrong with this picture. 

 

 

dmaker wrote:

 

 

Unsupported claims are the bedrock of bigfoot. It's pretty standard fare around here.

 

 

It happens on the other side of the aisle, also, dmaker. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber pinned this topic
  • masterbarber unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...