IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot , Bob Gimlin , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Closed Thread
Old 26th April 2012, 07:58 AM   #8241
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
They didn't need horses.
Just the two MOUNTAIN TRACKERS, RIDING THROUGH THE DEEP VALLEYS OF THE PNW, err... I mean ACTORS and their horses. The Bigfoot guy, he could just walk to the site. The horses were just there for the filming. RP and BG could have walked as well, but that wasn't in the script.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Last edited by Drewbot; 26th April 2012 at 07:59 AM.
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 09:02 AM   #8242
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
I'm just not sold on Bob, personally.
Paint me green and tell me to leaf, but I just don't buy into any part of Bob's story.

Parts of Patterson's story, we believe. Such as "I was at this place on this date, with a camera rented from that guy, along with my friend over here"
See, that information we can confirm, and actually prove to be correct.

I do believe that monkeysuit is the answer, I just don't believe that it was Bob.
Nothing Bob says can be shown, proven, or corroborated properly; apart from extremely circumstancial.

Example of one of my doubts: Why wouldn't there be 3 horses for 3 men?
Surely you are not about to suggest that a man as large as Bob can share a horse with another man AND CAMERA EQUIPMENT PLUS MONKEYSUIT over that specific terrain...
Even just the 2 men on the single horse is a bit of a stretch, imo.
You would appear to be some sort of closet 'footer. Be that as it may, you may have some evidence I don't know about, that Patterson had a camera with him on October 20. If so, please share it with me. The point is not that I doubt that he had a camera, but that you are showing your bias.

Even more to the point:

You should realize and admit that camera or no, Patterson and Gimlin being in Bluff Creek on October 20 is completely compatible with Bob H.'s story, so it doesn't really count as supporting the Patterson Gimlin version of events as opposed to the Bob H. scenario.

The fact that Bob H. took his mother's car for several days, and came back with a costume in the trunk, witnessed by several people, which costume was then retrieved by Patterson and Gimlin in Gimlin's truck, seems quite convincing to me.

Numbers of horses? please. In the first place, it seems clear from the statements of two witnesses on the scene within a couple of weeks, and other evidence, that Patterson and Gimlin were camped within a few hundred yards of the film site. This not only supports Bob H.'s story, but it also explains why it wasn't necessary to have an additional horse. And the ground is pretty level there, and it is actually a primitive road. So much for your horse theories. Riding double over even ground at a walking pace for a few hundred yards? please google this if you don't understand that it isn't a big deal. Camera gear? Patterson carried a camera and an extra roll of film in his saddle bag. Wow. That wasn't the horse Bob H. was on.

You are grasping at straws to the extent that it seems clear that you "reason" like a footer.

So you are outed.

welcome to the JREF. Don't try to fool us.
p.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 09:05 AM   #8243
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by jhunter1163 View Post
Again, you'll have to forgive my lack of proof to hand (I'm only a very occasional poster in these threads) but IIRC there's a pic of the whole gang on horseback, one man per horse. I'm not sure if that pic was taken on filming day, but I'm pretty sure there were horses for everybody out there that weekend.
Did a 10 minute Google Image Search, came up mostly empty.
Not proof that it doesn't exist, and no pressure from me on the topic - but if you happen to find that photo, I would appreciate a link or such.

But like I said, you don't have to go out of your way to find it.
Sadly, it would take overwhelming evidence for me to believe Bob was involved.

I just don't believe the whole "I was part of it, but they didn't cut me in" story.
If I were to hoax something, I wouldn't dare cut someone involved OUT, for exactly the fear that they would ruin it...
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 09:08 AM   #8244
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
I just don't believe the whole "I was part of it, but they didn't cut me in" story.
If I were to hoax something, I wouldn't dare cut someone involved OUT, for exactly the fear that they would ruin it...
You have to remember that you are not Roger Patterson.

wheunis probably wouldn't stiff the camera shop guy, or not pay his phone bills, or throw away club membership checks, or show up at a neighbor's house and build a Bigfoot observation tower, or copy someone's artwork and claim it as his own.

Two different types of people I hope.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 09:16 AM   #8245
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
You would appear to be some sort of closet 'footer. Be that as it may, you may have some evidence I don't know about, that Patterson had a camera with him on October 20. If so, please share it with me. The point is not that I doubt that he had a camera, but that you are showing your bias.

<snip>

So you are outed.

welcome to the JREF. Don't try to fool us.
p.
I have not hidden any part of my thoughts on anything thus far, so I see no need for a closet.
For the record: I firmly believe PGF is fakery/trickery/bs.
Furthermore: I do not believe Bob to be a part of the debacle at all.
And lastly (but sadly): Proof of fakery/trickery/BS wont really change anything at all in the greater scope of "footers".

That being said, I find there to be conclusive enough evidence to believe that Patterson did have a rented K-100 in his possession during that time, and was even arrested for not returning the camera.
What he pointed the camera at, however, was (until proven at least) not what he claims.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 09:18 AM   #8246
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
You have to remember that you are not Roger Patterson.

wheunis probably wouldn't stiff the camera shop guy, or not pay his phone bills, or throw away club membership checks, or show up at a neighbor's house and build a Bigfoot observation tower, or copy someone's artwork and claim it as his own.

Two different types of people I hope.
Truth. I have seen even seasoned criminals do some pretty dumb ****...
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 09:36 AM   #8247
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
I have not hidden any part of my thoughts on anything thus far, so I see no need for a closet.
For the record: I firmly believe PGF is fakery/trickery/bs.
Furthermore: I do not believe Bob to be a part of the debacle at all.
And lastly (but sadly): Proof of fakery/trickery/BS wont really change anything at all in the greater scope of "footers".

That being said, I find there to be conclusive enough evidence to believe that Patterson did have a rented K-100 in his possession during that time, and was even arrested for not returning the camera.
What he pointed the camera at, however, was (until proven at least) not what he claims.
oh come on, don't try to slither away from your statement about the camera. As I said, it's not important to the issues of the film, but rather only to your credibility/bias.

And there is no part of Bob H.'s confession that you find credible? and yet you think the film is a fake? please. Who did it? the mailman?

p.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 09:39 AM   #8248
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
I have not hidden any part of my thoughts on anything thus far, so I see no need for a closet.
For the record: I firmly believe PGF is fakery/trickery/bs.
Furthermore: I do not believe Bob to be a part of the debacle at all.
And lastly (but sadly): Proof of fakery/trickery/BS wont really change anything at all in the greater scope of "footers".

That being said, I find there to be conclusive enough evidence to believe that Patterson did have a rented K-100 in his possession during that time, and was even arrested for not returning the camera.
What he pointed the camera at, however, was (until proven at least) not what he claims.
If not Bob, then who was in the Patty suit?
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 10:59 AM   #8249
BravesFan
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
My belief that BH was Patty hinges on 2 things. He has passed multiple lie detector tests AND the fact that his walk is unmistakably similar to Patty's. It's so exactly dead on and is such a unique looking gait, that it seems ludicrous to think that A)an animal happened to walk just like Bob or B) someone else involved in the hoax walked exactly like him.

If pressed to write my opinion down in stone, Clue style, it was Bob , In Bluff Creek, with the monkey suit
BravesFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 12:00 PM   #8250
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
I have several other reasons, which I have discussed ad nauseum, but one I have only touched on once or twice is the way in which he came out. It is detailed in The Making of Bigfoot, but let me just say that having studied in detail (written about and published) the behaviors of those who claimed to have been part of another historic event, his behavior is characteristic of the truth tellers, not of those who falsely claimed to have been at that particular event.

To cite just a couple features:
He let his participation be known to friends and family from the beginning. He didn't seek fame until later in life when some perceived injustice (or just getting old and crabby) caused him to come forward. He did so carefully, knowing the hazards, and with legal advice. He did not shy away from confronting those who would challenge his story.

These are just not the actions of the fake 50,000 baseball fans who 30 years later claimed to have seen Babe Ruth call his shot, or the fake Marines who 40 years later claimed to have fought in Vietnam.

Either he is telling the truth, or he is completely insane, and has been for his whole life; the latter seems out of the question.

Okay, have to get back to heart surgery now. LOL.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 26th April 2012 at 12:02 PM.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 01:21 PM   #8251
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
oh come on, don't try to slither away from your statement about the camera. As I said, it's not important to the issues of the film, but rather only to your credibility/bias.

And there is no part of Bob H.'s confession that you find credible? and yet you think the film is a fake? please. Who did it? the mailman?

p.
I find the part of his confession credible, where he announces his name.
That part I believe. Yup. You are Bob H!

Who else wore the monkeysuit?
Mailman? Wife? Camera rentals dude? Police? Obama?
Why does that matter?
Why suddenly does my skeptism of Bob's claims hinge on me pinning it on someone else? Fallacy if ever I saw one.
Proving someone's innocence or guilt in a crime, does not hinge on pinning it to someone else.

So someone saw a gorilla suit in Bob's car. Whooo! As if there wouldn't be at least a few hundred of those in circulation around the US for various purposes (mascots, tv ads, whatever). The only thing that proves, is that he had a monkey suit.
What proof irrefutable has he produced that said suit is the used one? None, other than an unsubstantiated claim. Originally claimed the suit was made by Patterson out of horse hide, only to change that story later?

Last but not least, why am I to believe on any premise that he would tell the truth to begin with? He willingly and knowingly took part in a fraud, only to come out when he wasn't cut in on the money?!
Even assuming I do believe he was part of it, why trust a liar now? Because he said he had been burned? Cool story!

My only claim on the camera, is that there is no way of knowing that any specific one of the 3 lenses were used, on the K-100 in question.
As the camera is capable of using either one of 16, 18, or 25mm lenses - and neither of those support Bob's height as the figure in question, are we now to believe that Bob has the ability to grow and shrink at will?!

Last edited by wheunis; 26th April 2012 at 01:23 PM.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 03:36 PM   #8252
mustbeso
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 250
Nothing supports Bob's height because the distance from the camera to the subject is an estimate and probably a bad one. Who provided the distance figure? Was it not the same people who orchetrated the hoax, if it is one? Isn't one of them now well established as a liar and cheater of some magnitude? To try to distance Bob H from Patterson and Gimlin is impossible WHEUNIS. I assume you have found all the pics with them together by now? Your posture as a skeptic seems less than genuine.
mustbeso is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 04:12 PM   #8253
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by mustbeso View Post
Nothing supports Bob's height because the distance from the camera to the subject is an estimate and probably a bad one. Who provided the distance figure? Was it not the same people who orchetrated the hoax, if it is one? Isn't one of them now well established as a liar and cheater of some magnitude? To try to distance Bob H from Patterson and Gimlin is impossible WHEUNIS. I assume you have found all the pics with them together by now? Your posture as a skeptic seems less than genuine.
One of them?
No.
As much as I view PGF to be a hoax, I also within that same view regard all involved parties as liars and cheats.

You somehow make it seem as if pictures of the 3 of them together is as common as water, and yet, no - I have not seen any of them. Moreover, when did I assume the responsibility to clear Bob's name?

If your claim that Bob is not able to be distanced from Pat and Gim, based on such a photo, the onus is not on me to go find it...


But yes, agreeably, the distance used in the calculation is based on assumption.
To stretch that assumption as others have said, that it was 25mm used and nothing else - working backwards on the replaced assumption of Bob being in the suit, at 6'3" - Pat would've had to be standing a mere foot or 3 other side of the stumps.
If you would like a better estimate than 3 feet, I would oblige.
It's only solving a triangle or 3. Few minutes at best.


PS: Is that the only phrase that you folks have around here?
"doubt your skeptism" and it's variants really are quite tired by now.
I could care 17 flaming squirrels' asses less towards what you think of me; But if you believe that chanting some voodoo curse to keep the crazies away... by all means, don't let me stop you...
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 05:08 PM   #8254
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
You haven't responded to the responses to your post about the number of horses ..

Why does that have anything to do with BH's credibility ?
__________________
Maybe later....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 05:32 PM   #8255
AtomicMysteryMonster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
Here's the picture in question (try to ignore the inserted text).

Skeptical Greg's right, though. If the PGF was shot before the date given by Patterson and Gimlin, then the number of horses they had on the 20th doesn't matter.

Oh, and this is something to consider when discussing Bob H. and his claims...
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher

You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber
AtomicMysteryMonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 05:47 PM   #8256
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
One of them?
No.
As much as I view PGF to be a hoax, I also within that same view regard all involved parties as liars and cheats.

You somehow make it seem as if pictures of the 3 of them together is as common as water, and yet, no - I have not seen any of them. Moreover, when did I assume the responsibility to clear Bob's name?

If your claim that Bob is not able to be distanced from Pat and Gim, based on such a photo, the onus is not on me to go find it...


But yes, agreeably, the distance used in the calculation is based on assumption.
To stretch that assumption as others have said, that it was 25mm used and nothing else - working backwards on the replaced assumption of Bob being in the suit, at 6'3" - Pat would've had to be standing a mere foot or 3 other side of the stumps.
If you would like a better estimate than 3 feet, I would oblige.
It's only solving a triangle or 3. Few minutes at best.


PS: Is that the only phrase that you folks have around here?
"doubt your skeptism" and it's variants really are quite tired by now.
I could care 17 flaming squirrels' asses less towards what you think of me; But if you believe that chanting some voodoo curse to keep the crazies away... by all means, don't let me stop you...
It's 'couldn't care less'.
Do you care about answering questions? If Bob H. was not the bloke in the suit who was?
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 06:44 PM   #8257
AttorneyTom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
I agree... It is highly suspect with the horses. No need for them and seemingly a prop. As for Bob.. who knows ? But it makes more sense than anyone else being in that suit ?.. that noone can produce until a later time.. at some time later.. or a date uncertain in the future.
AttorneyTom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 06:44 PM   #8258
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
I find the part of his confession credible, where he announces his name.
That part I believe. Yup. You are Bob H!

Who else wore the monkeysuit?
Mailman? Wife? Camera rentals dude? Police? Obama?
Why does that matter?
Why suddenly does my skeptism of Bob's claims hinge on me pinning it on someone else? Fallacy if ever I saw one.
Proving someone's innocence or guilt in a crime, does not hinge on pinning it to someone else.

So someone saw a gorilla suit in Bob's car. Whooo! As if there wouldn't be at least a few hundred of those in circulation around the US for various purposes (mascots, tv ads, whatever). The only thing that proves, is that he had a monkey suit.
What proof irrefutable has he produced that said suit is the used one? None, other than an unsubstantiated claim. Originally claimed the suit was made by Patterson out of horse hide, only to change that story later?

Last but not least, why am I to believe on any premise that he would tell the truth to begin with? He willingly and knowingly took part in a fraud, only to come out when he wasn't cut in on the money?!
Even assuming I do believe he was part of it, why trust a liar now? Because he said he had been burned? Cool story!

My only claim on the camera, is that there is no way of knowing that any specific one of the 3 lenses were used, on the K-100 in question.
As the camera is capable of using either one of 16, 18, or 25mm lenses - and neither of those support Bob's height as the figure in question, are we now to believe that Bob has the ability to grow and shrink at will?!
you're not a very good pretender. The old suit of horsehide chestnut is another giveaway that you read the bleevers posts and not the actual book The Making of Bigfoot.
who do you think is in the suit if you think it is a hoax? it matters because you have to have a reason why you think it is a hoax. One reason would be the confession by Bob H. Either you have another person in mind or you have another reason. Which is it?
And you are off base on the camera also. It will accept any lens that has the C mount, though long telephoto lenses were too heavy for the turret. The most common were 15, 25 and 63mm. It also needed the corresponding finder lenses. I suspect you are confusing lens with the film speed settings. LOL.
I love the old "if he WAS a fraud, then you can't trust him to tell the truth...." do you see the logical issue there? and yes, people actually do confess things. You might be surprised that many if not most of our present prison inmates are there because of confessions.

Edited by jhunter1163:  Edited for civility.


p.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by jhunter1163; 27th April 2012 at 09:47 AM.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 06:50 PM   #8259
AttorneyTom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
The other giveaway on this is the walk.. forget the arms. This guy PattyBob.. whoever.. whomever you want him to be.. he walks like some guy who is late for an appointment.
AttorneyTom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 07:12 PM   #8260
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
Patty walks like a human in a suit with suit feet that are too big.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 07:22 PM   #8261
AttorneyTom
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Patty walks like a human in a suit with suit feet that are too big.
Yes.. with the overcompensated knee bends.. I dont know how else to describe it.. reminds me of some guy late for an appointment wearing galoshes ? For lack of a better comparative ? Clown feet.. oh.. and in a suit.. saying hello for the camera.

The other thing is like I said earlier .. the horse props. I remember seeing this in the early 70's when it came out in the Theatres. It made it look so remote etc.. it was not .. even then.

BF should have taken the advice of Pink Floyd back then.. but PBob would have fallen on his masked face !

Last edited by AttorneyTom; 26th April 2012 at 07:27 PM. Reason: I dont know..
AttorneyTom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 08:55 PM   #8262
Deacondark
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 334
For "Wheunis"

Took me less than a minute to find
Deacondark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th April 2012, 09:22 PM   #8263
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
Did a 10 minute Google Image Search, came up mostly empty.
Not proof that it doesn't exist, and no pressure from me on the topic - but if you happen to find that photo, I would appreciate a link or such.

But like I said, you don't have to go out of your way to find it.
Sadly, it would take overwhelming evidence for me to believe Bob was involved.

I just don't believe the whole "I was part of it, but they didn't cut me in" story.
If I were to hoax something, I wouldn't dare cut someone involved OUT, for exactly the fear that they would ruin it..
.


What you believe or don't believe has no impact on reality.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 06:42 AM   #8264
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster View Post
[url="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/album.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2274"]Skeptical Greg's right, though. If the PGF was shot before the date given by Patterson and Gimlin, then the number of horses they had on the 20th doesn't matter.

Oh, and this is something to consider when discussing Bob H. and his claims...
A good observation, yes. If the PGF was shot earlier, very little of any "evidence" would matter, and would change quite a bit.
Sadly, no conclusive evidence proves either way on the matter.

I'm not entirely sure about the Kong link you have provided. The only correlation I could draw is that Greene is a pattern pathological liar.

Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
It's 'couldn't care less'.
Do you care about answering questions? If Bob H. was not the bloke in the suit who was?
My mother.
This entire argument you (and others) present is highly suspicious.
I find this akin to arguing that a person cannot be declared innocent of a crime until he points to the person that is, in his stead, guilty.
Since when did passing the buck seal an argument?

The better question is: Why does it matter who was in the suit?

Originally Posted by AttorneyTom View Post
I agree... It is highly suspect with the horses. No need for them and seemingly a prop. As for Bob.. who knows ? But it makes more sense than anyone else being in that suit ?.. that noone can produce until a later time.. at some time later.. or a date uncertain in the future.
I am willing to accept that the horses were as much a prop as anything else could have been the same. I am not silly enough to think that horses indicate anything specific.
My claim merely states the following:
If Bob is saying that he was part of it, but only part in so much and that the setting and date for everything else is correct, one would reasonably have to ask him how he got there. Monkeysuit in tow...

A similar hypothesis presents itself by another user's link to a Kong thread of different forums. A person in that thread does present an interesting thought.

Could it be possible, that someone took part in something, only years later to have distorted that event in their mind, somehow thinking it to be of a different event?
I suppose it is possible, but with Bob, his conviction seems to have been lapped up around here.
So I offer a similar hypothesis.

Could it be that Bob did have a monkeysuit in his car, and did during that same relative scope of time partake in a BF hoax filming, but with another group of hoaxers?
Could he have, within this same hypothesis, decided after their failures that he will simply change a few details and stomp all over those other guys; The one's that did complete their hoax successfully?

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
you're not a very good pretender. The old suit of horsehide chestnut is another giveaway that you read the bleevers posts and not the actual book The Making of Bigfoot.

Edited by jhunter1163:  Moderated content removed.


p.
Thank you for your insults. Much appreciated.

Edited by jhunter1163:  Edited for Rule 0.


Originally Posted by Deacondark View Post
Took me less than a minute to findhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com...a18a6e0718.jpg
Thank you kindly.

Originally Posted by tsig View Post
What you believe or don't believe has no impact on reality.
And the same applies to everyone else here.
But somehow, mob mentality prevails. Everyone has latched on to Bob, for nothing more than it would serve their overarching desires above facts.
Sure, if Bob was involved and is being truthful, then it proves PGF as a fake!
And immediately everyone scrambles to prove him genuine.

Since when does proving one thing fake, hang on the assumption that something else must be instead true?
Explain to me, if you will, folks...
WHY can't PGF be faked, regardless of Bob? If Bob was never even born, then PGF can't be a fake?!
Is this how far the desperation has gone? That we will throw our case on the back of another fraudster, just to hammer our clause home?

Furthermore, I love the idea presented that Bob is too integral to PGF to ignore.
So, anyone who said that PGF was fake before Bob came out was wrong? Idiots?

Cmon guys, I know we can do better than rest our entire case on the halfwitted claims of another fraudster...

Last edited by jhunter1163; 27th April 2012 at 09:56 AM.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 07:14 AM   #8265
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
I don't see any half witted claims being made here. Maybe you can point out those posts, and explain why they are so. Also, when you say; "our entire case" - what exactly do you mean by that?

Do you feel the authenticity of the film lays on Heironimus's claim to be in the suit? The "our" part of that statement is curious to me also.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 07:23 AM   #8266
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by River View Post
I don't see any half witted claims being made here. Maybe you can point out those posts, and explain why they are so. Also, when you say; "our entire case" - what exactly do you mean by that?

Do you feel the authenticity of the film lays on Heironimus's claim to be in the suit? The "our" part of that statement is curious to me also.
I am indeed, very harshly questioning the apparent steadfast belief being held that MonkeyBob is the character in the film.
I really am getting a very deep unwavering feeling from certain members here, that Bob H has somehow been cleared of all suspicion, and without any amount of doubt is said figure.

I am asking for this absolutely irrefutable evidence that Bob has presented to make it so.

To answer your authenticity question: No. I do not feel Bob's claims has any impact on the authenticity of the film, unless proven that Bob's claims are in fact, 100% solid.
Even IF Bob is proven a liar, I do not feel it changes the outcome of the film's authenticity.
I still hold that the film is a hoax. I just don't agree that Bob is the key to that. I perceive Bob as nothing more than another opportunistic fraudster latched on to another hoax.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 08:20 AM   #8267
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
OK, one more time.
If Bob H was not the bloke in the Patty suit who was?

And another flippant answer like, "My mother" will most likely be the final nail in your coffin here.

B.H. is the only person to have ever confessed to being Patty, and there is a ton of other evidence that you can look up on this site, so if you can't come up with someone else we must assume it really is Bob.
__________________
Normal in a weird way.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 08:52 AM   #8268
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
wheunis seems to mainly be engaged in schoolyard name calling and other classic footer behavior.

No I don't think Bob H. confused the PGF with some other event, because he shared it with others at the time it happened eg his buddies and his coworkers and others). This is not simply Bob H's recollection (somewhat flawed, as are all long term memories). No one directly challenges his account except the fanatical footers ie neither Mrs. Patterson, nor Bob Gimlin, nor Al DeAtley. Not to mention the fact that he is the right size and build. His account was accepted then and it is accepted now by the locals. His account of the campsite is confirmed by two men who were there a short time after the filming.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 27th April 2012 at 08:54 AM.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:06 AM   #8269
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
Wheunis has stated that he "still holds the PGF to be a hoax". He's not required to accept/believe that Heironimous was in the suit for that conclusion to hold true. Nor is he under any obligation to name an alternate suit-wearer.

I cannot fathom why you folks keep grilling him on this. "I don't know" is a perfectly rational, skeptical response.
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:45 AM   #8270
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
Mod Warning Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:jhunter1163
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:55 AM   #8271
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
I am indeed, very harshly questioning the apparent steadfast belief being held that MonkeyBob is the character in the film.
I really am getting a very deep unwavering feeling from certain members here, that Bob H has somehow been cleared of all suspicion, and without any amount of doubt is said figure.

I am asking for this absolutely irrefutable evidence that Bob has presented to make it so.

To answer your authenticity question: No. I do not feel Bob's claims has any impact on the authenticity of the film, unless proven that Bob's claims are in fact, 100% solid.
Even IF Bob is proven a liar, I do not feel it changes the outcome of the film's authenticity.
I still hold that the film is a hoax. I just don't agree that Bob is the key to that. I perceive Bob as nothing more than another opportunistic fraudster latched on to another hoax.

I've made a few things bold in your comment. Why do you feel it necessary to address Mr Heironimus this way instead of addressing his claims? Curious indeed.

What do you feel would be absolutely irrefutable evidence of said claims? Gimlin confession? Pat Patterson confession? What type of evidence would be convincing to you of Heironimus's claims? (be specific please)

I personally feel like he is the most likely candidate to be the MIAS actor. What evidence or testimony in particular makes you think he's absolutely not the MIAS actor?
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 09:56 AM   #8272
rcfieldz
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,189
Really?

Originally Posted by jhunter1163 View Post
Mod Warning Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:jhunter1163
Is this supposed to be humorous? Sometimes I think all the threads on this site are humorless...
rcfieldz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 10:14 AM   #8273
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by River View Post
I've made a few things bold in your comment. Why do you feel it necessary to address Mr Heironimus this way instead of addressing his claims? Curious indeed.

What do you feel would be absolutely irrefutable evidence of said claims? Gimlin confession? Pat Patterson confession? What type of evidence would be convincing to you of Heironimus's claims? (be specific please)

I personally feel like he is the most likely candidate to be the MIAS actor. What evidence or testimony in particular makes you think he's absolutely not the MIAS actor?
I address him that way because I really hate (trying to) type his surname...
Not meant in a derogatory manner.

What would I consider to be irrefutable evidence of Bob's involvement?
Produce the actual suit.
His story claims that he had it. In his car. Show me the mon(k)ey Bob!

Next, I know someone is about to reference this photo:


Just not good enough for me in this instance. That is of a suit SIMILAR to the one sold to Patterson, as claimed by Morris.
This claim was backed up by Bob.

I just do not see the required similarity in that suit to the PGF figure.
Especially the head is extremely suspicious.

wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 10:47 AM   #8274
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
Heironimus Doesn't claim to have the suit. How would the suit help Heironimus's claim? (as far as being the one in the suit)

The Morris claim is another one all together. Morris also said that Patterson modified the suit, and ordered more dynel. Perhaps that could account for the differences. I'm not so sure it'll ever be settled.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 11:28 AM   #8275
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
....

I cannot fathom why you folks keep grilling him on this. "I don't know" is a perfectly rational, skeptical response.
V,
I may have missed it, but I don't think he wrote "I don't know". If so, show it to me and I will give my search function an "F", and decrease the gain on my troll detector.
just sayin....
p.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 11:37 AM   #8276
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by River View Post
Heironimus Doesn't claim to have the suit. How would the suit help Heironimus's claim? (as far as being the one in the suit)

The Morris claim is another one all together. Morris also said that Patterson modified the suit, and ordered more dynel. Perhaps that could account for the differences. I'm not so sure it'll ever be settled.
Well, if he had THE suit - obviously that would cement his claim as true.
Why else would Bob be in possession of THE suit?
Moreover, even the provable existence of THE suit, would completely put the PGF issue to rest once and for all. Bob being in possession of said suit would at the same time be the proof of his involvement.

Unfortunately, the only thing we have to go by in Bob's case is his knowledge of the event, and word of mouth.
Sadly, I do not put much weight to "Ask my sister! She will tell you the same!"

Last edited by wheunis; 27th April 2012 at 11:59 AM.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 11:44 AM   #8277
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
V,
I may have missed it, but I don't think he wrote "I don't know". If so, show it to me and I will give my search function an "F", and decrease the gain on my troll detector.
just sayin....
p.
Wheunis has not written "I don't know". I'm paraphrasing from the sum total of his arguments on the subject. His responses make it clear he has no idea.
"Proving someone's innocence or guilt in a crime, does not hinge on pinning it to someone else."

"I find this akin to arguing that a person cannot be declared innocent of a crime until he points to the person that is, in his stead, guilty.
Since when did passing the buck seal an argument?

The better question is: Why does it matter who was in the suit?"
And in this I agree with him. We may provisionally accept Heironimous's claims as likely to be true (as I do), but it's also perfectly rational and skeptical to neither accept nor reject those claims, until further evidence is forthcoming.
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 11:46 AM   #8278
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
Never mind.
It's a lost cause.
Definitely a BFFer. Where's Parcher when we need him?
__________________
Normal in a weird way.

Last edited by GT/CS; 27th April 2012 at 12:42 PM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 12:01 PM   #8279
mustbeso
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 250
whenuis,
I may be missing something here. Are you saying that Bob H has recieved money by coming forward as the man in the suit? I was unaware of this if it is so; or are you saying that the notoriety was his intent? Thanks
mustbeso is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 12:13 PM   #8280
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by mustbeso View Post
whenuis,
I may be missing something here. Are you saying that Bob H has recieved money by coming forward as the man in the suit? I was unaware of this if it is so; or are you saying that the notoriety was his intent? Thanks
I have no evidence to suggest that money was exchanged one way or the other.
I do however find it reasonable to suspect a monetary exchange of some sort. His prime motivation for "coming out" to begin with was "i didn't get my cut of money". If his motivation was really that simple and his participation that clear, then I suspect a civil court would be done with the matter in a heartbeat.

Notoriety is indeed the only measurable byproduct of his "confession". Intentional or not, that's what he got for it.
It's not unthinkable that this could have been his prime motive, but impossible to prove or disprove in any light.


The way I see the Bob H thing only comes to one of 3 things:

1: I was cheated and want my promised money.
2: I am being paid to lie.
3: I wanna see my face on the picktchar box!

I struck 3 off the record, because as I noted, impossible to prove or disprove.

Which leaves us with only 2 motives.
Revenge money.
or undeserved money.

Pick your flavor I suppose... I went with undeserved.

Last edited by wheunis; 27th April 2012 at 12:15 PM.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.