Jump to content

Think Like A Hoaxer


Recommended Posts

Backdoc

Kit,

 

There is an interview out there where Bob H tells Roger shook the camera as I had described. When found, I will give the Who What Where When and Why.  I will bet you a $3 bill it is out there.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

So find it and don't pester me with it or expect me to give you the benefit of the doubt. Most importantly, in the meantime, for holy mother's sake, don't ask me to do your homework and go find it for you.

You complain about context to a person who constantly has to lead you by the nose to the actual context of the things you keep taking out of context.

Show me Bob Heironimus saying Patterson pre-planned the shaking of the camera and then we can kick that ball around if it actually exists. My ball exists while you are turning your pockets out to see if yours does. Gimlin does in fact speak about witnessing with his own eyes Patterson executing a pre-planned maneuver based in his gymnastic agility wtaching Roger one hand Legolas the camera out of the half open saddle bag while sliding off the back of the horse. Roger tells a totally different version, but he in fact provided evidence for his version with hey, looky here at this bent stirrup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Kit,

 

There is an interview out there where Bob H tells Roger shook the camera as I had described. When found, I will give the Who What Where When and Why.  I will bet you a $3 bill it is out there.

 

Backdoc

 

Backdoc,

 

I wonder if you are thinking about Heironimus saying that Roger was atop of his horse when filming it as to explain the wild camera movement? The film proves what Roger had claimed as being on foot when he started filming and proved that Heironimus attempted to bolster his story by adding details easily proven to not be true.

 

It also demonstrates that Heironimus had not enough exposure to what has been learned from the film to be educated about the film-site, nor had anyone around Bob H at the time who could have told him better

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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...

 

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?

 

 

Because I am a really, really nice guy. :)

 

I'd just like to ask Bob "Bucky" Heironimus a few questions....that he has no answers for. I am open to other avenues for questioning him...so, if you can arrange something, I would certainly consider it.

 

The important thing here, is for Heironimus to be confronted with questions which he cannot provide satisfactory answers for...and is put into a position where he is thoroughly embarrased/exposed.

 

This will eventually happen...and you cannot prevent it. And neither can you state definitively that Bobby was Patty....because he wasn't.

 

 

So, again....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 are you so hesitant to make such a definitive statement??  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I'm still waiting for the  answer Kitakaze claimed he would get from Bob H about his possibly being on blood pressure and heart meds at the time of his Polygraph. Seems like was two years or more ago. Maybe he did ask and didn't want to share the answer with the forum for some reason, but then again maybe Bob H met Kitakaze at the Heironimus's door and Bob ran him off with a shotgun.   :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me Bob Heironimus saying Patterson pre-planned the shaking of the camera and then we can kick that ball around if it actually exists. My ball exists while you are turning your pockets out to see if yours does. Gimlin does in fact speak about witnessing with his own eyes Patterson executing a pre-planned maneuver based in his gymnastic agility wtaching Roger one hand Legolas the camera out of the half open saddle bag while sliding off the back of the horse. Roger tells a totally different version, but he in fact provided evidence for his version with hey, looky here at this bent stirrup.

 

Your problem is you continue to beg the question from a self-appointed position of privileged knowledge. You work backwards by assuming the PGF was a hoax and the 2 main conspirators just couldn't keep their stories straight. But you always stop short of explaining why Gimlin would shoot the hoax in the bigfoot by contradicting Patterson's bent stirrup story. All Gimlin had to say was he didn't see Patterson dismount because he was watching Patty at the time. It's a fake, fully rehearsed story anyway right? Then why would Roger break with the script without telling Bob about it? Or more importantly, why would hoaxer Bob knowingly refute Roger's testimony? How the heck was that thinking like a hoaxer? IMO, this is something a hoaxer would NEVER do unless they were half a bubble off plumb. Instead Bob decided to sell out Roger over a lousy bent stirrup, which no one would have doubted had Bob just kept his big trap shut. I guess he was just too honest for his own good. ;)

 

So Kit, why did Gimlin do it? Give us another rousing psychological analysis re what makes a hoaxer tick. :popcorn:

Edited by Gigantofootecus
Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Gentlemen!

 

Please refrain from personal insults and innuendo! These are a violation of forum rules. The forum rules are intended to allow a discourse to proceed on the General forum with a fair amount of decorum. They can be found at this link:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/29306-bff-rules-guidelines/

 

This thread is temporarily locked for a bit of cooling down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

This thread is now unlocked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

The 12 inch cast being that of Russel Gebhart and shown in Grover Krantz's book Big Footprints was something originally shown by LAL three years ago, which I had forgotten when I posted the comparison to Patterson's foot. This is the thread in which it was first discussed...

 

kitakaze,

 

Actually I think LAL told you about it on the 15th, you went on for seven more days until the 22nd when roguefooter posted the image with text...then with teddy bear stuffin' still adrift in the air...you fell surprisingly silent on the matter. 

 

I'm not sure when you meant you had forgotten. Because a day after LAL mentioned it, you said "Russell Gebhart was a Bigfoot researcher in the late 60's/early 70's. We're going to need some proof tthe owner of the foot was 7 ft tall because this is Roger's foot..." then on the 20th you quote yourself on the above Russell Gebhart quote adding the followin' "The following is a physical analysis that I submit as hard evidence that Patterson was indeed a Bigfoot hoaxer."  So, not sure how you forgot back then.

As for forgettin' it this last time, April 21st, how could you forget when you're talkin bout him creatin' hoaxed tracks, you even said in that post... "..even using his own feet which can create enlarged casts using things such as turpentine or a pantograph.

Like Freeman and Wallace, Patterson's casts show the same kind of internal consistency of hoaxing, particularly in the toe areas."

How can you forget the very thing you are talkin' about ??? You were specifically asked why you posted that image an for better image. You posted the image, but forgot to address the why part. Strange ?

You posted the image of Roger with all the casts suggesting he made them and hoaxed them, sayin' "What each of these collections show is an internal consistency with the hoaxer creating the fake prints." I'd like to know what internal consistancies you're talkin' about ? You thought Roger's foot was responsible Gebhart's cast so you'll forgive me for once again havin' a problem with what you claim ta see. You statement suggests Roger made/hoaxed all the casts, do you have anything to suggest he made all of them as you claim ? As of 1966, he has two casts in his book.

 

You had also said "This 12 inch alleged bigfoot cast..", where an how did it become an alleged bigfoot cast ? I found no such claim...you just came up with it bein' a bigfoot cast somehow all on your own.  

 

1) You didn't forget it 3 years ago.

2) How could you possibly forget it when you are specifically talkin' about it now(April 21st) ?

3) Do you have anything that says Roger made/hoaxed all those casts ?

4) How is/was it an "alleged bigfoot cast" ?

 

Pat...

 

39019e15.jpg

post-279-0-23534800-1430788461.jpg

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Bigfoothunter,

 

It is rather funny, the evidence he presents to suggest Patterson was a hoaxer, he has nothing to back it up. One piece he actually completely fabricates out of his own desire to try an proclaim Patterson a hoaxer...an yet he cracks jokes at us an says only in Bigfootery...ha ! ha ! 

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You had also said "This 12 inch alleged bigfoot cast..", where an how did it become an alleged bigfoot cast ? I found no such claim...you just came up with it bein' a bigfoot cast somehow all on your own.  

 

1) You didn't forget it 3 years ago.

2) How could you possibly forget it when you are specifically talkin' about it now(April 21st) ?

3) Do you have anything that says Roger made/hoaxed all those casts ?

4) How is/was it an "alleged bigfoot cast" ?

 

Pat...

As I already explained...

 

The 12 inch cast being that of Russel Gebhart and shown in Grover Krantz's book Big Footprints was something originally shown by LAL three years ago, which I had forgotten when I posted the comparison to Patterson's foot. This is the thread in which it was first discussed...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/33039-patterson-hoaxeror-hoaxee/

All the comparison images I made with it are here...

http://s1137.photobucket.com/user/DJKitakaze/library/?sort=3&page=6

If I had the original image with source I would not have made the comparison. If I was going to ninja false evidence, I would not do it with an image publicly available in one of the most widely published Bigfoot enthusiast books.

I do argue that Patterson employed the use of Wallace stompers in creating the PGF tracks. Prof. Meldrum also argue that Patty was responsible for BCM tracks. Do you think he is mistaken?

"...Well, I'm gonna make the argument that the Blue Creek Mountain tracks were left by Patty, and John and I don't agree 100% on that. I'm not sure he's given any ground on that yet or not." (27:07)

https://youtu.be/3ylSiLC3C1g

This is why I had mistaken Gebhart's cast as a Bigfoot cast made by Patterson...

Bighancock.jpg

Once again, if I am going to ninja fake evidence of Patterson hoaxing, I'm not going to do it with an image from one of Bigfootery's best known books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Once again, if I am going to ninja fake evidence of Patterson hoaxing, I'm not going to do it with an image from one of Bigfootery's best known books.

 

Sounds like damage control to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

OK, let's use your logic. Let's say I'm up for some dastardly Patterson framing. The Gebhart cast which looks very similar to Patterson's foot and is presented by Hancock House as being a cast made by Roger. Let's say I knowingly take advantage of that to try and pull one over on PGF believers and make them think Patterson was a hoaxer.

How could I use an image from one of Bigfootery's best known books and no expect to get busted?

I don't need to do anything ninja to make Patterson a hoaxer. The man trotted around a fake Gimlin. He would have had to coach the impostor for when people ask him questions. Total hoaxer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

How could I use an image from one of Bigfootery's best known books and not expect to get busted?

 

 

 

You "get busted" all the time...posting false/twisted information, and graphics.

 

That doesn't seem to even be a consideration for you. :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...