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

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.

You don't think $1,000 is a good reason to trust B.H. will do what he's supposed to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Bob Heironimus provides his own proof. Frankly, I don't buy it.

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.

Even simpler premise: Roger Patterson filmed a BF at Bluff Creek and BobH is "being somewhat economical with the truth" as the saying goes.

To the OP: That's the genius of the whole "Patterson faked PGF" fantasy...when Skeptics need Patterson to be a genius Bigfoot HoaxerTM who can bamboozle money men, fool entire communities, and hoax a BF film that (Skeptic claims notwithstanding) STILL has not been demonstrated to be fake, then he's a genius.

When Skeptics need Patterson to do something world-class idiotic (like let BobH make off with the suit, or not PAY Bob his supposedly agreed on fee), then Patterson's IQ suddenly plummets about 200 points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

When Skeptics need Patterson to do something world-class idiotic (like let BobH make off with the suit, or not PAY Bob his supposedly agreed on fee), then Patterson's IQ suddenly plummets about 200 points.

Agreed. Roger Patterson is simultaneously assigned brilliant and foolhardy attributes. That Patty is quite possibly an undescribed upright creature. And that Patterson captured the perfect hoax, one still alive.

I'm far from decided but it's entirely possible the PGF films a living sasquatch. I saw it first at age thirteen, myself. As I was briefly staying at an aunt/uncle's, in a far distant corner of my home state, I'm able to place the date and time I saw the Patterson/Gimlin film.

I'm approaching my late fifties. As a new-teenager, the 300 mile journey, back in '67, made a great impression on me. I was keen to see the evening news, and my ridiculously young ass picking up on the national release of the '67 bigfoot news.

Here to tell ya, I own that experience, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Even simpler premise: Roger Patterson filmed a BF at Bluff Creek and BobH is "being somewhat economical with the truth" as the saying goes.

To the OP: That's the genius of the whole "Patterson faked PGF" fantasy...when Skeptics need Patterson to be a genius Bigfoot HoaxerTM who can bamboozle money men, fool entire communities, and hoax a BF film that (Skeptic claims notwithstanding) STILL has not been demonstrated to be fake, then he's a genius.

When Skeptics need Patterson to do something world-class idiotic (like let BobH make off with the suit, or not PAY Bob his supposedly agreed on fee), then Patterson's IQ suddenly plummets about 200 points.

This is the sort of black and white, all or nothing thinking that is so pervasive in fortean belief communities. It can not allow for any kind of spectrum of being or behaviour. It can't allow that Roger had gifted abilities, but could also make large errors in judgement. It doesn't allow that part of the reason the PGF remains unresolved is because of the fact that the most basic things necessary for making a determination one way or the other have been removed and were never available for examination. Also, not all of the smart things that keeps the PGF unresolved, like the the original film, where and how it was developed, etc being removed need to be decisions by Patterson. Patterson had DeAtley to prevent him from going too overboard.

If one can't understand how Patterson could be talented and do smart things, while also being able to make big blunders, one will find themselves at a basic disadvantage with the history of Bigfootery. Smart people can make simple mistakes...

Bigsnowwalker.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

If one can't understand how Patterson could be talented and do smart things, while also being able to make big blunders, one will find themselves at a basic disadvantage with the history of Bigfootery. Smart people can make simple mistakes...

Yeah but Patterson giving Bob H the suit would be the biggest whopper in the entire history of whoppery. That wouldn't just be a mistake or a blunder, that would be complete and utter dumbness of the first order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Why, exactly? Why would it be so singularly stupid for one of the hoaxers to leave the scene of the hoax with the film and the suit while the others two finished their end of things at the scene? The suit was not actually given to that hoaxer. Is it a greater stupidity than not having any manner of coherent story as to how the film left the scene, was processed, and then viewed within 48 hours, particularly when this was the first thing being asked for by people skeptical of the film?

The reason is that the hoaxer who transported the suit and mailed the film could have exposed the hoax, yes? Yet this person maintained a decades long friendship with one of the two principle people behind the film, one that Gimlin characterized with a deep trust. Heironimus claiming to be Patty is not a new thing. It's been well known amongst Yakima locals at least since 1970. How can Gimlin not only live beside and be such close friends with, but also work with as well someone who is saying he's a hoaxer to the extent that it was common knowledge in the workplace?

Is one of the hoaxers transporting the suit back to Yakima to be picked up two days later by the other hoaxers when they returned his horse a bigger blunder than trusting a Yakima film developer to keep secret that Patterson was a hoaxer? Harvey Anderson was a far greater risk than Bob Heironimus. He was not bound to Patterson and Gimlin by any tight bonds of friendship, yet that is what we are confronted with - a person who didn't go public on their own with knowledge of Patterson being a hoaxer because there was actual sympathy for his situation and the notion that it was for a higher cause.

P&G had friendship and promises to keep Heironimus quiet and he was given 1/10 of the promised amount by Gimlin when they both worked for Noel Pepsi according to Heironimus. No, Patterson and Gimlin have made far bigger blunders than the one being considered of trusting a close friend and fellow hoaxer to make sure he doesn't blow the hoax. The incredulity by Kerchak and others who scoff at the notion Bob would be entrusted to transport the suit bizarrely treats him as if he was not a close accomplice and friend to the other hoaxers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Why, exactly?

Think like a hoaxer. Think like a hoaxer. It would be the dumbest thing in the world to give the 'suit' you have just painstakingly made/altered to Bob H, after you have painstakingly planned and executed the whole thing for months (years?).

The scene was not a crime scene. Quincy wasn't about to jump in his jeep and get up there. Going by the hoax scenario the film was actually made long before it was announced to the world. There was NO REASON AT ALL for Roger to part with his 'suit' in California and certainly not to entrust his masterpiece to man who couldn't keep a secret and was driving around in a shiny new car a long way from home with Washington number plates. :lol:

Edited by Kerchak
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I agree, 100%, Kerchack. Turning both the Film and the "suit" over to Bob...(or whoever)...would have been giving the 'crowning achievement' of your life's work away to a third party, to take a couple of States away......with absolutely NO reason for doing so. wacko.gif

Gee...that makes sense.


kitakaze wrote:

Why, exactly?

Why would it be so singularly stupid for one of the hoaxers to leave the scene of the hoax with the film and the suit



See above... smile.gif


Again, folks.....notice kitakaze's clever use of words. He is a master at his craft.


Compare his wording...

Why would it be so singularly stupid for one of the hoaxers to leave the scene of the hoax with the film and the suit


....with the alternative...

Why would it be so singularly stupid for Roger to give the Film and Suit to a fellow hoaxer, to take away from the scene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This is the sort of black and white, all or nothing thinking that is so pervasive in fortean belief communities.

No, it's common sense, Kita.

It can not allow for any kind of spectrum of being or behaviour. It can't allow that Roger had gifted abilities, but could also make large errors in judgement.

Awfully convenient for you that his "gifts" and "errors" line up exactly as your theory needs them to, isn't it? That's he's exactly what Skeptics need him to be to support their hoax theories?

It doesn't allow that part of the reason the PGF remains unresolved is because of the fact that the most basic things necessary for making a determination one way or the other have been removed and were never available for examination.

We still have the most important primary evidence: the film. And the science that is being put into analyzing the film by people like Bill and Sweaty that blow your chimera of a hoax theory 1000% out of the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Is one of the hoaxers transporting the suit back to Yakima to be picked up two days later by the other hoaxers when they returned his horse a bigger blunder than trusting a Yakima film developer to keep secret that Patterson was a hoaxer?

For the record, the above is your interpretation of another man's opinion, not a proven in any way fact, Kita.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

It's not even proven that Bob H was even in northern California in 1967. In fact there is zero evidence for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

I agree, 100%, Kerchack. Turning both the Film and the "suit" over to Bob...(or whoever)...would have been giving the 'crowning achievement' of your life's work away to a third party, to take a couple of States away......with absolutely NO reason for doing so. :wacko:

Gee...that makes sense.

Totally incredulous for any 'master hoaxer' to do. Doesn't make ANY sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Bob H gave an interview on the show Lie Detector where he states he had the suit the next day after filming and showed it to others.  He states the next day after filming he in fact goes to the local bar and took a few people there out to his car and showed him the suit in his trunk. He states he told them to take a look 'at this' but did not say what it was. He told them that later they could look back when something big happens and 'they would know he was the guy in the suit'. What a load of bunk.

 

Keep in mind, he has at this time not been paid that $1,000 yet. So if he is to be believed what does he do?  He takes the suit and shows others so the whole PGF will fall on it's face virtually making it certain he will not receive a dime of that $1,000. That makes no sense.

 

He claims in other interviews he could be trusted. That is why they chose him. He claims in other interviews he keep quiet all these years and would have continued to if they just would have paid him his $1,000. But then he did not keep quiet if he showed these people this suit the next day.

 

Let's take all the other stories and changes in these stories out of the mix. Just consider he supposedly took the suit the next day and showed a bunch of people so he could do all he could to make sure he did not get paid for the work he just had claimed to do.  Follow the money. Makes no sense.  $1000 in the 1960s was a lot of money.  Ummmmmmmmmmmm  Not likely.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Has anyone corroborated his claim of displaying a suit in his trunk?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...