Jump to content

DeAtley interviewed by proponents?


Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Can you give an example of Long steering Heironimus away from something when it didn't make sense or was contradictory?

 

An example of the exact opposite is where Long first meets Heironimus in person and confronts him about his evasiveness when Heironimus tried to hide his involvement in Roger's finding Bigfoot movie. He said directly to Heironimus that he was waffling and knew more than he was letting on. From Heironimus' perspective he had no idea who Long was or what his intentions were and did not know what the ramifications would be for him and for his friend Gimlin nine doors away and thus he pretended he had no involvement ever with Patterson.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find any proponent interviews of De Atley or Bob H.?

 

Does anyone have a link to any proponent interview of the above?

 

There seem to be a few interviews of Wallace way back but they mainly consist of Wallace perpetuating his hoaxes.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
20 hours ago, kitakaze said:

Can you give an example of Long steering Heironimus away from something when it didn't make sense or was contradictory?

 

An example of the exact opposite is where Long first meets Heironimus in person and confronts him about his evasiveness when Heironimus tried to hide his involvement in Roger's finding Bigfoot movie. He said directly to Heironimus that he was waffling and knew more than he was letting on. From Heironimus' perspective he had no idea who Long was or what his intentions were and did not know what the ramifications would be for him and for his friend Gimlin nine doors away and thus he pretended he had no involvement ever with Patterson.

You read the book the same as  I did. The descriptions of the suit  dio not coinside with a Morris  suit. The  explanations of the area were  not the same as  the film clearly projects. There are  numerous  obvious  false  statements by your  Bob H  that you continue to ignore that has been pointed out several times on this  forum. 

it is time to let go of the obvious fantasy that he wore the suit.  It has been established at least in my mind and  others that he simply  could not have  been the  creature.  He is not a skilled mime and lacks the  physical charcteristics  that  would be required to accomplish  this extraordinary feat. 

 

Now once again I must remind  there are no  Bigfoot type specimens roaming the dark forest  of  the modern world. There is also no way  Bob H donned a suit  in 1967  and walked into history.   You are fooling yourself if think otherwise.  You come across as a bright young man.  Time to let it go.  I understand you have put yourself out there  and as a matter of pride you are forced to stick to  your convictions. 

 

You go back and forth with SW  and it is a stalemate.  He is most likely correct and I agree with him . No Bob H in the film.  You are also correct. Highly unlikely there is a creature  depicted in the film. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 2:15 AM, kitakaze said:

I have personally interviewed many of the same people Long has and I know he is a reliable source who made his investigation open to anyone. The first chapter is an artistic fictional imagination of October 20,1967. That is the one chapter I recommend skipping. The rest is detailed and responsible investigative journalism. Long personally objected to Patterson from his own personal lifestyle choices and his distaste for Patterson's habitual deception and swindling of others comes through clearly, but it does not invalidate the information he uncovered. None of it was the suit or a confession from either DeAtley, Gimlin or Patricia Patterson. In this regard he allowed DeAtley to manipulate his desire for dirt on Patterson when sitting right in front of him was one of two main architects of the hoax.

"..when sitting right in front of him was one of two main architects of the hoax." haha ! In your opinion...  ;)

 

"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."

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

"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."

 

That is what originally put me off of Long's book.

I revisited years later and focused less on Patterson and Heironimus and found tons of useful information. Information that can't be found anywhere else because no one asked.

Edited by Martin
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Long's book debunked BF as much as BigFooterY has proven bigfoot.

 

It's a talking point.

 

A point of discussion.

 

Were Gimlin to release a book, we would discuss it with equal scrutiny...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
On 2016-08-09 at 6:20 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Long's book debunked BF as much as BigFooterY has proven bigfoot.

 

It only seemed to debunk BF to those who took it at face value. For those who checked Long's facts for themselves found out otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

^^^

 

The film was not spliced.  The film was obviously shot in the fall.  Is there anyone who really thinks otherwise regardless of their belief on patty specifically?   

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

MK Davis must not have put much thought into his theory that the film was shot in the summer. Since when do tree leaves change to fall colors in summer?

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

MK Davis should be taken as seriously as any Bigfooter out there.

 

As you should be taken as seriously as any skeptic out there who cannot explain how stepping harder on a rigid wooden foot will leave tracks far deeper in a substrate that other men can only walk atop of?

 

track depth compared to shoe prints_zpsupkoc39y.jpg

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Ulkis said:

MK David has a theory that the film was shot in the summer because of the length of Patty's shadow. Patterson could've been indeed very bullish about shooting good footage if he already had the film in the can. The developing of the film timeline and story does seem super fast and muddled and there would be more leeway as to where and when it was developed if the footage was filmed earlier in the year.

 

Aside from what motive could Roger have had for not claiming he had filmed a Bigfoot months earlier so to get started on his road to wealth and fame .... the fall colors are well known to the locals in that area. Davis knew so little about the film and the area that he thought Dahinden's BCM film was part of Roger's film because he was too stupid to ask Murphy what the source of the footage was that he had obtained.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
9 hours ago, Ulkis said:

 

 

MK David has a theory that the film was shot in the summer because of the length of Patty's shadow. Patterson could've been indeed very bullish about shooting good footage if he already had the film in the can. The developing of the film timeline and story does seem super fast and muddled and there would be more leeway as to where and when it was developed if the footage was filmed earlier in the year.

 

 

The red colouration of the vine maple make it a physical impossibility that the film was shot in the summer. It was most likely shot during the first or second week of October.

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

The red colouration of the vine maple make it a physical impossibility that the film was shot in the summer. It was most likely shot during the first or second week of October.

 

What do you narrow down the PGF as being shot in the first or second week of October?  It seems to me that if you are going to just throw out any old opinion - you should have a well thought out basis for doing so. Let us look at this without an agenda .........

 

1)  What can you say about the color of the foliage that would separate it from the second week in October to the third week in October?

 

2)  How does your opinion not conflict with the following points -

a -  Heironimus said that he left for home the day after the film was shot and that Bob and Roger came the next morning after that to drop off the horse and to retrieve the alleged suit from the truck of Bob H's mothers trunk. What evidence do you have that Patterson and Gimlin went back to California after dropping off Bob H's horse and retrieving the alleged suit?

 

b -  Al Hodgson met with Patterson and Gimlin at his hardware store on the evening of October 20, 1967

 

c -  Patterson was interviewed by phone while in Willow Creek on the night of October 20, 1967

 

 

 

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
18 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

What do you narrow down the PGF as being shot in the first or second week of October? 

 

 

 

 

There is something almost approaching a coherent question here. I'm going to give you a hand and assume the word you were searching for is "why", not "what". 

The answer is...

 

1 - Nature.

 

2 - Restrictions of time, space and film development of Kodachrome II film.

 

Quote

 

2)  How does your opinion not conflict with the following points -

a -  Heironimus said that he left for home the day after the film was shot and that Bob and Roger came the next morning after that to drop off the horse and to retrieve the alleged suit from the truck of Bob H's mothers trunk. What evidence do you have that Patterson and Gimlin went back to California after dropping off Bob H's horse and retrieving the alleged suit?

 

 

I would really like to engage in a functioning conversation with you. To do this, I need you to be able to become proficient in the following areas...

 

1 - Italics and bold - what is this? A quote from another person? An attempt at emphasis from you?

 

2 - Quote and source. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. If you start a sentence with "____ said...", please, please, please be better at debate and actually show what was said so we do not need to rely on the memory of a person that can not recognize their own written statements. It's face-clawing tedious otherwise to have t do your homework for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^

"There is something almost approaching a coherent question here."  &  "I would really like to engage in a functioning conversation with you. To do this, I need you to be able to become proficient in the following areas..." 

 

It's funny, just the other day he was whinin' about another one of his claims...those crazy bigfooters tryin' to have his son taken away an callin his work. In the same breath he was thankin' SweatyYeti, he was right back into his regular name callin' an belittling tactics(turtle an he'd crumble like a cookie in milk) nonsense. SweatyYeti told him the same thing I did recently, you reap what you sow.

 

Once again I can't help but bein' reminded of the Raylan Givens quote..."You run into an..."

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...