Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martin

DeAtley interviewed by proponents?

Recommended Posts

HOLDMYBEER
BFF Donor

Out of a felt obligation to other investigators who have put substantial efforts into the film processing timeline question I want to urge you to keep this thread open. Pending a recheck of personal notes and journals, a post will be forthcoming that is likely to be determinative.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

Right-- I rarely drop in, but when I do I don't won't to stare at the front of a padlock next to the thread title!

 

Happy Thanksgiving all!

Edited by bipedalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 2:52 AM, kitakaze said:

 

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.

 

6 hours ago, kitakaze said:

 

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...

 

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.

kitakaze,

 

On the bottom of the same page(2), you complain about someone doing something that you just did at the top of that very page.

 

Is this another example of that Klink you say we don't have...but you do ? Klink...in which you yourself described as..."Klink is the self important pretension to think of oneself as a stalwart investigator."

 

Pat...

 

ps Happy Thanksgiving folks !

 

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Just thought I'd add...

 

 

Not only can I show that Bob Heironimus lied. I can show that he lied badly... -kitakaze

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2011 at 2:02 PM, kitakaze said:

There is an important question to be addressed regarding the friendship between Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus. On December 5, 1998 Greg Long first contacted Bob Heironimus after numerous people had said he was in the suit in Patterson's film and Long was given the photo from Larry Lund showing Bob and his brother Howard as cast members in Roger's South Fork movie. In this recorded interview Bob Heironimus not only denied and evaded questions about the PGF, he also denied any involvement in Roger's South Fork movie repeatedly after being questioned about it. Here's an excerpt...

I knew Heironimus was one of Patterson's amateur actors in his documentary shot on the the South Fork. I inserted a mild hint of disbelief in my voice, as a test: "So, you're saying you didn't pal around with him (Patterson)?" "No, I didn't. Uh-uh." "For a period of time in the 1960s he was trying to make a Bigfoot documentary - " "Uh-huh," he said, projecting disinterest. " - on the South Fork; and there's Bob Gimlin, and a guy named Jerry Merritt, and some other guys, were playing roles in this movie. Are you aware of that movie?" "Yeah, I know something about that. Uh..." A nervous twicth rippled thorugh his voice. "What do you know about that movie?" I said, increasing the pitch of my voice slightly. "Well, I - you know," he fumbled, "I think more than a few people knew about that movie after it come out, you know."

Heironimus was referring to the Bluff Creek footage. I sensed he was trying to deflect my attention away from Patterson's South Fork documentary. "Well, there's a famous movie of the Bigfoot walking across this open area down in Norther California, there's that movie - " "Uh-huh." Apprehension was in his voice. " - and then there was another movie he was doing on his own in the Ahtanum Valley. He was using a cameraman from a local television station, I think, to do this movie." Slowly, he said, "Uh... huh." And Bob Gimlin and Jerry Merritt were two guys who were in this movie." Suddenly, I sprang the question on him: "Were you part of tha movie?" "No," he answered flatly.

Merritt had told me that Heironimus was in the documentary. He had identified Heironimus's image in the photo of the six cowboys that Lund had given me. There was Bob Heironimus sitting on a horse. "Are you aware of that movie he was - ?" "No," he said. Then he caught himself, "It kinda, you know, rings a bell." He added, "I'm not really sure, you know." "Uh-huh," I said. MoB, p. 146-147

Bob then continues to deny involvement in the South Fork film and clumsily evade questions about it and the PGF. Bob is shown on the far right in this cast shot here...

Share this post


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

 

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.

 

1 - Nature ... ?   Based on what .... your many years of not living in the Bluff Creek area Vs those who have. So other than you just saying "Nature" .... is there any actual data you have to offer to support your statement.

 

2 - Tell us all you know about how long it takes to develop a roll of color Kodachrome II film and we'll compare it to what the leading expert said about it ....

 

Ron Mowrey  " I believe that the process took around 3 hours and I know that 1 - 3 people could do the job "

20 hours ago, kitakaze said:

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.

 

1 - The statement concerning something relating to what Heironimus has said is something you either are aware of or not no matter who is saying it.

 

2 -  Same as with #1.  If you acknowledge that Heironimus said he left California the next morning after the alleged hoax was film and that the following mroning that Patterson and Gimlin came to Bob H's mothers house to get the suit and drop off the horse, then there is nothing to debate.

 

Meaningless Jibber-Jabber won't distract from the points that have been made.

crazy copy_zpspwbusppm 2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Ulkis welcome to the forum.

 

The drawing was no coincidence.

 

Look up Mort Kunstler's bigfoot drawings.

 

Also, DeAtley has never been approached by a proponent, as far as I'm aware.

 

 

Share this post


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

Also, DeAtley has never been approached by a proponent, as far as I'm aware.

 

It has been posted that John Green sat and spoke to DeAtley at Al's home. Dahinden as well - and both Thomas and Steenburg.   :)

4 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

The drawing was no coincidence.

 

Look up Mort Kunstler's bigfoot drawings.

 

What was no coincidence, McSquatch - that Kunstler drew a female Bigfoot when talking about William Roe's sighting?  Or was it no coincidence that Kunstler's drawing didn't have a sagital crest because Row's daughter's drawing didn't have one??

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=mort+kunstler+bigfoot+drawing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

If this is a correct statement from BFH...

 

"Ron Mowrey  " I believe that the process took around 3 hours and I know that 1 - 3 people could do the job "

 

 

Doesn't this pretty much settle the issue?  I read this to be it might take is one person motivated and with the right stuff around him to develop the film.

 

Before this thread was started, I was under the impression it would take some Mt. Everest type effort to get the film developed and a huge crew to make it happen.  This does not seem to be the case.

 

BD

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Ulkis,

 

Here are a few images. Which drawin' were you talkin' about ?

 

Pat...

(An welcome to the forum. :drinks:)

drawin'comparison.JPG

female sasquatchs2.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

From Rogers book...his own drawings.

Albert Ostman's bigfoots.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, PBeaton said:

From Rogers book...his own drawings.

Albert Ostman's bigfoots.JPG

 

So Roger could have filmed a male and it too could have been spun into the brainchild for the subject of his film. And the funny thing is that none of the drawings (male or female) look like Patty, but Patty does look like make of the descriptions witnesses have given over time.     :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^ Yup ! I've never understood the fuss they make of the drawings in his book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
36 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

^ Yup ! I've never understood the fuss they make of the drawings in his book.

 

Fishing for something / anything is my guess.

fishing_117285.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^ haha !  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
1 hour ago, PBeaton said:

^ Yup ! I've never understood the fuss they make of the drawings in his book.

 

They see what others do not. To them, this is evidence of a premeditated 'crime' 

 

They don't see any of these drawings as the reasonable thing we all do. There is never a context offered.

 

BD

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...