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

Backdoc

The PGF had not even come out yet.  This was he next day right after filming.  Bob H claims he happens to have the suit in the trunk of his car(a suit that keeps changing in description) and goes out of his way to show these people the suit.  A suit he is being paid $1,000 to wear (almost $8,000 in 2014 dollar).  Ah heck who wants $1,000 when I can blow the whole deal by showing these drunks at the bar.  The heck with the fact I just took my time to go all the way out to Bluff Creek and put on a suit and do this film and haul the suit back and keep it in my car.  Yea, I will make sure I do all I can to make sure I don't get paid for that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^ Yes, I understood you fine the first time, not sure why you repeated it. My question simply asks has anyone said that he showed the suit to them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Most of these claims have come decades after. It's easy to claim today to be one of the 500,000 people who where at Yankee Stadium when Reggie Jackson hit 3 home runs in the 1970's when it seats less than 100,000.

 

Bob H never claims he even told any of these supposed witnesses to keep quiet about it.

 

Many explanations have been offered.  

 

While i don't buy the skeptical argument and especially Bob Heironimus, our BFF poster Kitkaze seems to be a guy who knows the players involved and has done some work in this area as I understand it.  I would contact him.   He might be pretty helpful.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

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.

 

People always forget that the 'track making equipment' (whatever that may be) stayed with Patterson while Heironimus took the suit. The idea that it would take the evidence away makes no sense when they kept evidence behind.

 

 

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

 

Roger Knights covered this point pretty well-

 

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3BPK2J31N7EW9

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Rogue,

Thanks. Roger knights play by play you provided a link for is outstanding work. Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

You know, just to think about it.. the only scenario that works with Bob H and a "suit" is that if he were the person that purchased a so called suit from Morris.

 

This scenario would fit the bill for all the supposed sightings of a suit in the trunk of his car, as well as Morris stating he sold to someone in Washington.  

 

However, due to the fact that Bob said the suit came in a top and bottom, that would exclude a Morris suit and chalk it up to yet another fail.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

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!

 

Did they have plastic trash bags in 1967?

 

Why would the guys going to show off their bent stirrups, and talk to people in the town, want to risk being caught with a suit?

Send it back with the guy who noone even knows is down there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Oh that's right, we know he was there because there was a scratch in his mothers car, and we could see his glass eye through the mask, and his keys in his pocket, more superior sleuthing by the local internet skeptics.At least he got the color of the sand right.....oh wait......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I am Bob H:

 

I can be trusted that is why they picked me...unless

 

I was at our local watering hole the Next Day after the PGF was made and showed some of the guys at the watering hole the suit in the trunk and told them to remember this

 

I am speaking out now because I never got my $1,000 they owed me ....unless

 

I blew my chance to eve get that money by immediately blowing the hoax less than 24 hrs after I went to all the effort to help make it happen.  See I didn't want that money....unless

 

There was going to be 'payola' on this thing and I wanted my share.  That is why I know exactly how the suit was put together...unless

 

I told many changing versions of the suit. 

 

       It goes on and on and on.  And yes, I know exactly what the color of the soil was there. I mean, I dunked down in a hole after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Did they have plastic trash bags in 1967?

 

Why would the guys going to show off their bent stirrups, and talk to people in the town, want to risk being caught with a suit?

Send it back with the guy who noone even knows is down there.

 

Why would they risk being caught with track stomping equipment which they supposedly still had with them?

 

The bottom line is this is a weak theory considering they could have easily hidden anything in the woods if need be. How hard would it be to hide a suit in the woods if it were really a concern? All the roads there are cut through thick forest, they could hide it 5 feet off the main road in town and nobody would know. This idea that they had to have it taken back to Yakima in order to hide it seems a bit excessive and unnecessary.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The fact roger never had another Bigfoot encounter is a strong indication it's less likely a hoax by following the money.

The skeptics say roger did a hoax motivated by money. Hey, never another sighting. Just take the suit a see Bigfoot again in the area and film him in a similar way. It might be easier to sell the second film.

Roger doesn't seem like a very good con man if he fails to keep cashing in. He had the first check. Once it was cashed simply find Bigfoot again.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...