Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Why Would "said Suit" Be Given To The Guy That Says He Wore It!

Recommended Posts

Guest

by looking at the many threads that cover "BH" tales and his so called wearing said suit.and lack of details etc. but the two guys that are reported to have shot that film clip were out there and not living in the lap of luxury. BH says he wore a suit and the film is a hoax! then why would they give the suit to be taken away on a long trip by BH. then shortly after necessitating to undertake that trip to recover it!,and to also be made in reverse by the hoaxers?. costing more in time fuel etc. did they leave there horses,or cart them down then back up?

Edited by justwonder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

by looking at the many threads that cover "BH" tales and his so called wearing said suit.and lack of details etc. but the two guys that are reported to have shot that film clip were out there and not living in the lap of luxury. BH says he wore a suit and the film is a hoax! then why would they give the suit to be taken away on a long trip by BH. then shortly after necessitating to undertake that trip to recover it!,and to also be made in reverse by the hoaxers?. costing more in time fuel etc. did they leave there horses,or cart them down then back up?

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I'm having a hard time understanding the sentence structure and general writing of the OP, so I'm going to proceed and just grab the gist of it and answer the thread's title question...

Why Would "said Suit" Be Given To The Guy That Says He Wore It!

Well, first of all, the original premise is false. The one who wore the suit was not given the suit.

Here's a simple premise that shouldn't be too difficult. You have three hoaxers from Yakima executing a hoax in NorCal in early October. One of the hoaxers, the one who wears the suit, comes a couple of days after the other two hoaxers, who are staging the event. After filming the main Bigfoot sequence of the hoax, one of the hoaxers (guy in suit hoaxer), has the job of mailing the film which will be sent to Al DeAtley in a self addressed Kodak development canister after going to Palo Alto for development. He transports the hoax's suit back to Yakima after mailing the film in Eureka. When his hoaxer partners return to Yakima a couple days later, they drop off his horse they used and pick up the suit.

Please feel free to ask any questions you have with the specifics of this simple premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Actually the sentence structure is perfectly fine and understandable. There is no reason to give Bob H the suit to take away from the film area. Its not like the suit was as big as a 1967 Buick. The entire thing would have fit in a conventional trash bag. Furthermore it would have been easy enough to stash it in the truck or camping gear. Its not like the area was teeming with hoax inspectors. It makes no sense but much of what the self proclaimed suit mime says makes a great deal of sense. Oh and mime drove film back to Yakima with suit. All handed over from a guy intending to rip the mime off. Yikes!

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm having a hard time understanding the sentence structure and general writing of the OP, so I'm going to proceed and just grab the gist of it and answer the thread's title question...

Why Would "said Suit" Be Given To The Guy That Says He Wore It!

Well, first of all, the original premise is false. The one who wore the suit was not given the suit.

Here's a simple premise that shouldn't be too difficult. You have three hoaxers from Yakima executing a hoax in NorCal in early October. One of the hoaxers, the one who wears the suit, comes a couple of days after the other two hoaxers, who are staging the event. After filming the main Bigfoot sequence of the hoax, one of the hoaxers (guy in suit hoaxer), has the job of mailing the film which will be sent to Al DeAtley in a self addressed Kodak development canister after going to Palo Alto for development. He transports the hoax's suit back to Yakima after mailing the film in Eureka. When his hoaxer partners return to Yakima a couple days later, they drop off his horse they used and pick up the suit.

Please feel free to ask any questions you have with the specifics of this simple premise.

And this is pure speculation, is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Good question. No, it is not. Pure speculation is when you fill in the blanks yourself, not based on the testimony of the people involved. The canister described by Heironimus was the same type used to be sent to Kodak's headquarters in Palo Alto. Gimlin's truck bringing Chico back at night was witnessed by Opal Heironimus on the same day she handled the suit along with two other family members. DeAtley confirmed knowing Heironimus through Patterson.

One of the hoaxers bringing the suit back in his car to be retrieved by another hoaxer when they returned is not insanity. You don't think it was wise? So what? Patterson did all sorts of facepalm maneuvers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Patterson giving the suit to B.H. was a great idea. That way there was no evidence of a hoax anywhere near the crime scene. It was hundreds of miles away.

Edited by FuzzyGremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Yep, allow the one artifact that could destroy you, the smoking gun, to be transported by the dude that YEARS LATER claimed to be the mime. The dude that claimed he'd be paid $1000 in 1967 dollars for his short saunter. The dude that claims to have shown off the smoking gun suit to his drinking buddies.

Makes perfect sense. I'm the queen of Sheba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Glad you agree that it makes sense.

Regarding the queen thing; what you do on your own time is certainly your business.

Edited by FuzzyGremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Surely you have a sense of satire, don't you?

Sorry to keep calling you Shirley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Thepattywagon

Patterson giving the suit to B.H. was a great idea. That way there was no evidence of a hoax anywhere near the crime scene. It was hundreds of miles away.

What crime scene?

The moment Bob H (allegedly) was helped in getting out of that hot suit, and it and the camera were stashed, there was no crime scene. And they weren't doing anything illegal, so why the need for such secrecy that far out in the woods?

I'd have been MUCH more concerned that Bob H would lose the suit, have it stolen or show it off to his drinking buds (which he did). If Roger really spent 8 weeks and endless hours making his 'Perfect Patty', why would he entrust a half sighted man to drive it and the film back to Yakima?

Why would Roger think the suit would be safer in the trunk of Bob's MOTHER'S car, knowing there was a good chance she'd be driving the darned thing?

Imagine you are Roger and you just filmed your magnum opus. You are beside yourself with excitement because you know you pulled it off.

So what do you do? Of course, the only safe and reasonable thing for a hoaxer to do is to send blabbermouth Bob back home with both the film AND the smoking gun.

Ridiculous at best. I'd have to have fallen off the proverbial turnip truck right on my head to believe a word of his yarn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Actually the sentence structure is perfectly fine and understandable.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to fire my translator...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

What crime scene?

The moment Bob H (allegedly) was helped in getting out of that hot suit, and it and the camera were stashed, there was no crime scene. And they weren't doing anything illegal, so why the need for such secrecy that far out in the woods?

I'd have been MUCH more concerned that Bob H would lose the suit, have it stolen or show it off to his drinking buds (which he did). If Roger really spent 8 weeks and endless hours making his 'Perfect Patty', why would he entrust a half sighted man to drive it and the film back to Yakima?

Why would Roger think the suit would be safer in the trunk of Bob's MOTHER'S car, knowing there was a good chance she'd be driving the darned thing?

Imagine you are Roger and you just filmed your magnum opus. You are beside yourself with excitement because you know you pulled it off.

So what do you do? Of course, the only safe and reasonable thing for a hoaxer to do is to send blabbermouth Bob back home with both the film AND the smoking gun.

Ridiculous at best.

I'd have to have fallen off the proverbial turnip truck right on my head to believe a word of his yarn.

I'd say it's ridiculous, too, PW... :)

The Film and "the suit" would have been everything to Roger, at that point....the 'crowning achievement' of his life's work....his 'Magnum Opus', as you put it.

I can't imagine Roger handing both of those items over to a barely interested Bob H....(Bob has no knowledge of the innerds of the "suit"...he couldn't have been talking to Roger very much, on the day of the "filming")....to take away with him, a couple of States away.

And, it makes even less sense when you consider the fact that, under the 'hoax' scenario, there would have been no time pressure to have the film developed, or to bring the "suit" anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Looks like I picked the wrong week to fire my translator...

tumblr_ll5nevumvm1qdj5rqo1_250.gif

I get your drift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Here's a simple premise that shouldn't be too difficult.

*snip the usual fairy tale of a hoaxed BF film*

Please feel free to ask any questions you have with the specifics of this simple premise.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...