Jump to content
Bill

Think Like A Hoaxer

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

(oh and Kit, you failed to address in your post #486: Bob Heironimus claimed the shaking of the film was a pre-planned event.  I can't imagine you were ignoring this point and would love to answer it so:   Do you agree with Bob Heironimus the shaking of the film was a pre-planned event by Roger as Bob H claims?  Yes or No?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Good try but you have taken many things out of context as you have before.  For instance in an early Radio interview Roger claimed a certain distance and Gimlin said he was not sure he agreed with that as Roger was, "A little excited"   Yet, you don't put that in perspective. You fail to tell the rest of the story in context.  

  We never hear the 'Rest of the Story' from you.

No, I'm afraid unfortunately you don't even know what the story is so you talking about context is amusing and nothing more. Context is extremely important to me as quote-mining and contextomizing is rife in Bigfootery to the point they do it as much if not more than people who can not come to grips with the reality of evolution.

You will know be handheld through actual context. The early radio interview is Roger Paterson and Bob Gimlin appearing on CBC in Vancouver, Canada. It is Thursday, October 26 1967 and P&G are being interviewed by Jack Webster who earlier that same night was one of the journalists present for the PGF showing in the Tudor Room of the Georgia Hotel in downtown Vancouver. The men are not discussing distance, but rather the apparent length of Patty's arms, Gimlin saying they hung below the knees and Patterson disagreeing...

Webster: Describe it to me, Bob.

Bob: It was a large hairy creature with arms that hang down beside

its, you know, far down on its sides, below its knees, and it was

quite ..

Webster: Do you agree with that?

Roger: No, I think Bob's a little excited here, I don't believe they

were below the knees, they were above the knees.

Full transcribed interview is here...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

The reason I do not cite, discuss or include trifling discrepancies such as that or whether or not Patty was squatting or standing is because they are petty and meaningless and easily mistaken without guile and deception.

You talk about ignoring things and yet you've ignored and hand-waved away a slew of meaningful and messed up Patterson and Gimlin contradictions. Your excuse to do so is a dog mangles slipper blender chop of actual PGF history with a backfired complaint about context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

The reason I do not cite, discuss or include trifling discrepancies such as that or whether or not Patty was squatting or standing is because they are petty and meaningless and easily mistaken without guile and deception.

 

Yes ....you go more for the bombshell that never seems to go off. The arm length can easily be differentiated by one man being atop of a horse and looking downward at the subjects hand in relation to the knee while the other man is lower and on a more even plane thus the hand may appear slightly above the knee in Roger's case. Then perception and recall can vary even though two or more people witnessed the same event especially in moments of sudden excitement. 

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

​And on the shaking the camera thing, Bob H also claims Roger asked the guy he rented the camera from about shaking the camera.   This assumes the Camera shake, according to your Buddy Bob, was a pre-planed effect.  Yet, we know from analysis of the event, that is 100% false.  But Bob just won't stop talking and he feels the need add to his story and explain every detail.   You would think he would say, "Why did the camera shake? Heck I don't know. i was too busy trying to walk and not fall down in my one eyed monkey."

I have no idea to what you are referring. You started as such...

Also at some point I seem to remember (and could be wrong) that Bob Heironimus gave an interview where he said something like this:    Roger asked the camera guy about shaking the film.  So Roger shook the film back and fourth by design.

The next time you start out by alleging something with "at some point I seem to remember (and could be wrong)" and then later jump directly to asserting it as fact, please rise from where you are seated and back slowly away from the Internet. Take however much time you need in deep thought to try and recall where and when you think you remember that assertion you are unsure actually happened. Should you fail to be able to do this, do not return to the Internet and try and ninja the claim in as fact as though others will take it for granted. This is no dead bears Bigfoot enthusiast meme creation.

You will now be handheld through what alleged pre-planning looks like...

Green: But then Roger’s horse didn’t go down?

Gimlin: No. It didn’t fall down, just reared up is all.

Green: Because this has been said since [inaudible] …you know that Roger’s horse fell down…?

Gimlin: No, no his horse never did fall down. No.

Green: Okay, that’s interesting. So did he get the camera while he was still on the horse?

Gimlin: Yes, while he was stepping down off the horse. Umm, a lot of people have asked me about that and they probably don’t realize the agility that Roger had. He was a tremendous athlete. Roger had tremendous agility! He had been a rodeo rider, he did gymnastics and this wasn’t a full size horse Roger was riding either. It was a pony, a small horse.

Green: Yeah, I’ve seen those little horses, he used to haul them in a Volkswagen bus…

Gimlin: Yeah, we used to haul two of them in a VW bus. Roger rode these horses because they were easy to get on and off of because Roger wasn’t a very big man. So actually when he was getting off his horse, he always kept that saddle bag ready. The saddle bag had two flaps on it to keep it buckled down. He kept one buckled and one of them unbuckled so he could get his camera in the event he needed it in a hurry and this was the case at that particular time.

Green: So he practiced getting the camera out of the saddle bags in a hurry?

Gimlin: Oh yeah, lots of times. Yes, he did, that was his theory that if he ever had to get it, ah kept the one buckle on there so it would not bounce out while he was riding and the other one loose so he could get it out in a hurry.

Here is the full interview and context, the rest of the story, for your review...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

That is not Gimlin being unsure what he saw. He is being very specific about what Roger did at the beginning of the film event and discussing why and how it was pre-planned. There is no horse pinning, no completely flattened stirrup. If you can not come with anything nearly approaching that level of clearly indicated pre-planning, then you are not ready for me today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The arm length can easily be differentiated by one man being atop of a horse and looking downward at the subjects hand in relation to the knee while the other man is lower and on a more even plane thus the hand may appear slightly above the knee in Roger's case.

Nobody's taking issue with it, so you're talking to Mr. Hat again...

Mr.G.jpg

If you want to lose the straw man, you might try addressing that if Gimlin saw Roger get the camera, which he claims asserting a practiced maneuver for such an event, then he saw what happened with Roger's horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I plan on confronting him accompanied by a friend...with a camera running.

 

That way, we can all watch Bob get sweaty...as Sweaty gets Bob. :haha:

Thank you. I was waiting for that. I could not ask for a better demonstration of disturbingly creepy and just plain wrong fanaticism.

I would never in a million years, were my position against the claims of either Bob Gimlin or Bob Heironimus, attempt to come to their home where they live with their loved ones and attempt an on camera ambush home confrontation. I would not be surprised in the least nor could I fault either man, especially given the fringe nature of Bigfootery, to be escorted off their property via shotgun.

For years now I have wanted to have both Gimlin and Heironimus participate in a joint interview. The best way I could try to arrange this was to allow for each man to participate by phone from the privacy of their own homes or wherever they choose and to not have any obligation to address one another directly. These are elderly men and regardless of whatever involvement they have in Bigfoot hoaxing decades past, they are family men whose homes I would consider completely off limits as far as cameras and confrontations go. Not Greg Long, not anyone has been so brazen as to try such out of bounds behavior. Daniel Perez once visited Heironimus at his home during the first Yakima Bigfoot Round-Up but was wise enough to never consider trying to show up uninvited with a friend and a camera.

Well, Bob Gimlin has a film is not an excuse you can use for why it would be immoral and highly extremist to do this with Bob Gimlin at his home, but OK for Bob Heironimus nine doors away.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Washington State Law before trying "Sweaty Gets Bob" unless you want "Sweaty Gets Cuffed" or "Sweaty Gets Chased By Heironimus Family Member With Baseball Bat."

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

Sweaty, do you understand why this is considered taboo, unethical conduct and is not done even in the soap opera antics of Bigfootery?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

If you want to lose the straw man, you might try addressing that if Gimlin saw Roger get the camera, which he claims asserting a practiced maneuver for such an event, then he saw what happened with Roger's horse.

 

He couldn't see Roger if his eyes were fixed on a Sasquatch while thinking to himself 'Wow, I guess they really do exist!' Then he said he watched the creature turn and then start walking away. Gimlin was also there when Roger told Hodgson about his bending the stirrup when he pulled the horse over and Bob never spoke up. So you want people to believe these two men ran an elaborate hoax while at the same time you are claiming there is a smoking gun if Gimlin took his eyes of Roger and focused on his seeing a Sasquatch and missed the horse going down. Do we need to review some more video of a horse falling and then getting back up? The concept is asinine IMO in light of Bob admitting that while he didn't witness the horse falling over ..... he admits that he wasn't watching Roger the entire time as the reason for him not seeing the part Roger spoke of.

 

Not very good critical thinking from where I sit if all you can do is speculate by digging for knat dung in a pile of pepper.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thank you. I was waiting for that. I could not ask for a better demonstration of disturbingly creepy and just plain wrong fanaticism.

 

 

Like your baseless accusations and vendetta against a long dead man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I would never in a million years, were my position against the claims of either Bob Gimlin or Bob Heironimus, attempt to come to their home where they live with their loved ones and attempt an on camera ambush home confrontation.

 

No - you would concoct a story about having a secret plant sneak into a man's office and stream video evidence to you and then go on the world wide web and tell people about it as you await the pigeon to arrange for you to go see it.

Like your baseless accusations and vendetta against a long dead man?

 

And in spite of it all - the dead man still comes out on top.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thank you. I was waiting for that. I could not ask for a better demonstration of disturbingly creepy and just plain wrong fanaticism.

 

 

I challenge you to state that one, or more "principals/creators of the PGF" have told you definitively that Bob Heironimus was the filmed subject. 

 

Why have you been hesitant to make such a definitive statement?? :)

 

 

As far as your characterization of my plan to confront Bob Heironimus...(on his fraudulent claim)...as being "disturbingly creepy and just plain wrong fanaticism".....I could always invite Bob out for a pizza...and just politely ask him some questions...which he would have some difficulty answering. 

 

Would that be okay with you, kit? 

 

 

 

 

Sweaty, do you understand why this is considered taboo, unethical conduct and is not done even in the soap opera antics of Bigfootery?

 

 

kit wrote:

 

  "Yes, I do, if you propose Bigfoot exists in a similar fashion to the kermode bear. Even that would be really bizarre..."

     

    "If you think Bigfoot is something akin to the kermode bear ...... there's nothing weird about it."

 

 

kit...do you understand why nobody has ever said anything like what you have said, above.....and never will? 

 

Because that "logic" of yours is absolutely meaningless....worthless....self-contradicted....garbage. 

 

 

I think you should take your judgements/personal attacks on other people....and.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit,

 

Nice stuff which I might get to later.

Meanwhile, back on point, would you care to post the interview with Bob H where he tells us Roger had pre-planned the shaking of the camera thing?  Interviews with Gimlin don't answer what Bob Heironimus said.

And also back on point, do you agree or disagree with your friend Bob H the shaking was pre-planned.?

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Sweaty, you can put any number of quote-mined statements of mine together as you like and talk all about contradictions as much as you like. Nothing will compare to the display of total disregard for ethics and personal privacy shown in these two posts...

 

^

 

I'll just swing-by one day, and discuss his claim with him. :)

I plan on confronting him accompanied by a friend...with a camera running.

 

That way, we can all watch Bob get sweaty...as Sweaty gets Bob. :haha:

No one does that. It's completely and rightfully understood to be out of bounds behaviour. There are reasons why those privacy laws are in place. You can't just come onto people's property and attempt to confront them with whatever grievance you have in your head and try and record it. If I had ever suggested showing up to Gimlin's home for an ambush confrontation with a friend and camera running, I would rightly expect to be denounced from every corner of Bigfootery. I've invited you to participate in a recorded interview with Heironimus in which you can ask whatever gotcha questions you like via the proper channels, but there is obviously a massive disconnect bewteen the normal world and what you think is acceptable behaviour towards people who you think offend your belief system.

You can certainly travel from coast to coast and coming to Yakima attempt to invite Heironimus to pizza and gotchas, but again I can see the look on people's faces if I suggested doing this with Gimlin.

How on Earth could you ever think trying to confront Heironimus at his home with a buddy and a camera running is acceptable behaviour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit,

 

Nice stuff which I might get to later.

Meanwhile, back on point, would you care to post the interview with Bob H where he tells us Roger had pre-planned the shaking of the camera thing?  Interviews with Gimlin don't answer what Bob Heironimus said.

And also back on point, do you agree or disagree with your friend Bob H the shaking was pre-planned.?

 

Backdoc

Sweet mother, this is actually happening. You get tapped for taking "at some point I seem to remember (and could be wrong) that Bob Heironimus gave an interview where he said something like this: Roger asked the camera guy about shaking the film. So Roger shook the film back and fourth by design." and ninja-ing it as if it were then actual fact, then you.. wait for it...

...ask me to find that thing that is in your head.

As you like using hypothetical pretend scenario dialogues, you will again be handheld through what you are doing with the use of one.

This exchange...

 

And on the shaking the camera thing, Bob H also claims Roger asked the guy he rented the camera from about shaking the camera.   This assumes the Camera shake, according to your Buddy Bob, was a pre-planed effect.

I have no idea to what you are referring. You started as such...

Also at some point I seem to remember (and could be wrong) that Bob Heironimus gave an interview where he said something like this:    Roger asked the camera guy about shaking the film.  So Roger shook the film back and fourth by design.

...

 

Meanwhile, back on point, would you care to post the interview with Bob H where he tells us Roger had pre-planned the shaking of the camera thing?

Equates this...

BD: At some point I seem to remember (and could be wrong) an interview with Mr. Smith claiming to have found a three dollar bill.

KK: I have no idea to what you're referring.

BD: Would you care to post the interview with Mr. Smith claiming to have found a three dollar bill? Do you agree or disagree that Mr. Smith found a three dollar bill?

Backdoc, that thing in your head you allege to maybe exist but could be wrong but then later assert to exist as fact?

No.

You go find that thing in your own head.

An actual sourced interview with Gimlin claiming to witness Roger do a maneuver that was pre-planned in total contradiction to something Roger provided physical evidence for in the form of a bent stirrup speaks directly to that hmmm I seem to remember thing you are discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Bob: It was a large hairy creature with arms that hang down beside

its, you know, far down on its sides, below its knees, and it was

quite ..

Webster: Do you agree with that?

Roger: No, I think Bob's a little excited here, I don't believe they

were below the knees, they were above the knees.

 

 

I don't pretend to run around with a file catalog full of Bigfoot stories and so on.  I knew there was actual examples in an early interview about the PGF where Gimlin did not agree with Bob.  So we are talking arm length and not distance.  Fair enough.  The main point is this:  Gimlin had no fear to disagree with details Roger related even early on.  This is evidenced by the snip it you provided. 

 

That is my point.   It is true I don't know the exact story.  I don't pretend to know what radio station, what interview, what day, and so on. What I do know is

Bob was not afraid to disagree with Roger early on from time to time. Later as Bob got older, it is also reasonable that he can't remember every detail of everything.  I am concerned of the early statements near the event. THey support a man in Bob Gimlin who was at least willing to disagree with Roger.  It is up to us to decide if that means anything.  I don't think it hurts Patty's case any.

 

The broader point IS the point.  We can make an issue of the fact I am not someone who lives and breaths every little detail of Bigfoot Lore.  If I know Al DeAlteys home address or Roger Patterson's favorite color it does not change the fact Bob Gimlin was willing to disagree with Roger. He was willing to disagree early on.

 

I would think two people who were pulling a hoax for money would try to be on the same page.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Sweaty, you can put any number of quote-mined statements of mine together as you like and talk all about contradictions as much as you like. Nothing will compare to the display of total disregard for ethics and personal privacy shown in these two posts...

 

Yes - Ethics 101 from Kitakaze. So if Sweaty got an inside man to sneak around with a recorder while in the Gimlin home (or the same in the case with Heironimus) so to betray their trust in hopes of getting dirt on them - then that would be more ethical than just going up to them and asking them face to face.  I'd be careful and stay out of the deep end of the pool as I can't see you having the ability to walk on water just yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...