|
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. |
27th April 2012, 12:18 PM | #8281 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
27th April 2012, 12:54 PM | #8282 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
So, what's the deal? You agree that the PGF is a film of someone in a suit so which of Patterson's and/or Gimlin's friends is in the suit in the film? There aren't many to choose from but if you can't come up with one here are some hints: - Who is the only one who admitted being the suit wearer? - Who is the only one who had the suit in the trunk of his mother's car and showed it to the bar patrons? - Who is the only one who confronted DeAtely about not being paid what he was owed for wearing the suit? - Who is the only one who let Gimlin borrow his horse (as seen on the film) for a couple weeks? - Who is the only one who gave the suit back to Patterson after his horse was returned? Shall I go on or do you get my point? If Bob H. did is not the person wearing the Patty suit in the PGF who is the bloke in the suit? Has anyone heard from Parcher lately? We need his special skills. |
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
27th April 2012, 01:16 PM | #8283 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
I do not know.
Neither do I care. If you like, however, I will endeavor to get a re-print of the phonebook of that year and we can start there. Thanks for more of the thinly veiled insults so often used to bolster yourselves, as I have presented in another discussion. Ignoring the arrogance and oh-so-superior intellect so obviously presented by this masterful use of insults - I shall simply say one thing: Your assumption that it HAD TO BE one of his friends, is quite frankly, equal in absurdity to some pretty magnificent claims by fanatic bigfoot believers. For all that you, or I, or anyone else has evidence to lay out as proof, it might just as well be a vagrant off the street paid in scotch. Have a nice day. |
27th April 2012, 01:33 PM | #8284 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
27th April 2012, 01:50 PM | #8285 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
You claim Bob H is in suit.
I say I don't believe you, and reject your premise. Burden of proof is your's, not mine. Why would I go about proving the non-existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? More precisely: Burden is Bob's. But if you wish to speak on his behalf, have at it. |
27th April 2012, 01:56 PM | #8286 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
|
There are a lot of manipulation clues with our new fella, but one of the interesting ones is the use of the word "sadly", like here:
Quote:
Oh really? Why is this a thing to be sad about? Sad for you? Sad for humanity? What is the purpose of this word sadly? Because on the face of it there is nothing to be sad about. But you feel compelled to stick that word in there. Maybe it is a clue, eh:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In that one, check out the additional term "unfortunate" along with "sadly". Boy, is he really in anguish over having "only" a confession of a co-perpetrator backed up with multiple lie detector tests, and eyewitness corroboration. Unfortunately, and sadly, this is transformed by our friend into "word of mouth" and pretense that family members are disbarred from corroboration when they are eyewitnesses. Courts don't do that of course. Only the guy claiming to be so sad and unfortunate over it. Notice how the word sadly can instead be an important clue to the opposite: being very happy about transforming eyewitness testimony into "word of mouth". Being happy about no amount of evidence being enough for him. Being happy that disproving the PGF will not change the beliefs of 'footers. Correlation = 100%: Where the word "sadly" is used, the writer can be viewed as happy instead. Whereas interpreting the word as signalling actual sadness - it does not fit the data like that at all. And the one achieving the most sadness and misfortune of all is that no amount of evidence can convince him Bob Heironimus is in the suit. Gee, who is in charge of choosing that outcome? Surprise! It's whenuis! So logically, wouldn't it make for a much happier whenuis to remove his sadness and misfortune by allowing himself to change that obviously unreasonable position? That's proof the word does not mean what it says. Now, we have only four data points. But they show correlation 100% and the most important data point of all has double weignt because it shows that more deceptive words are added when the importance of the deception rises. Since we have announced we're on to him the data is going to be manipulated so this is the end of it. But he's already been outed by others. I just wanted to add my little hobby horse of understanding deception and manipulation in as corroboration. |
27th April 2012, 02:10 PM | #8287 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
27th April 2012, 02:13 PM | #8288 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
|
BH is the prime suspect, but I would not say "The walk" is good evidence, since it can be replicated by many people. Remember, a NG skeptical show had an actor replicating the "Patty walk" right in front of Meldrum's face.
His story with Patterson and Gimlin is more convincing IMHO. However, for all I know (and I know nohting), anyone else could be the bloke in the suit, maybe even Patterson or Gimlin. Its not that hard to increase an actor's height and bulk with costumes. |
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too… |
|
27th April 2012, 02:13 PM | #8289 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
Yes, I am rather sad that Bob H cannot be validated as telling the truth.
Him, or any other person, being proven as the suitman would conclusively shut the case on PGF forever. I am, indeed, deeply disappointed that Bob's claim does not hold any weight in the real world, other than hearsay. Oh wait. I'm sorry. I forgot your infallible Lie Detector. I will save you the time and quote the relevant ruling instead...
Quote:
If you prefer a more scientific viewpoint on the issue, I am pleased to provide a single one, which in itself will further lead to more reference material on the matter. William G. Iacono, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience; Director of the Clinical Science and Psychopathology Research Training Program at the University of Minnesota; published paper titled Forensic "Lie Detection":
Quote:
|
27th April 2012, 02:29 PM | #8290 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
|
IMO, who is in the suit is secondary to that it IS a suit. BH can't prove he was the man in the suit anymore than anyone can prove he wasn't. It happened 45 years ago and I reckon any evidence to that effect is long gone.
The circumstantial evidence is as follows: He claims to be the suit wearer Nobody else has come forward as such He passed a lie detector test He fits the height range He walks very similarly to Patty He knew all those involved and is a friend of Gimlin's to this day I'm not saying that we could convict of him of being the suit wearer, but I think that he would garner a good bit of extra surveillance and would be the prime suspect. |
27th April 2012, 02:30 PM | #8291 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
|
|
27th April 2012, 02:31 PM | #8292 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Since Bob H. being Patty is the default postition it is up to you to provide evidence that will make us look another direction.
If you can't provide anything we have no choice but to dismiss you as someone who spouts nonsense regarding BH's role in the PGF and we must stay with the default position. |
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
27th April 2012, 02:36 PM | #8293 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
The default?!
Default as proven by what? I hear you stating your belief. I hear your claim as to a default. I call your statement into question. I am sure as heck not challenging any amounts of any "default" here, as no default exists. Default has proof. This garbage has none. Fall much for the lie-detector, do we? |
27th April 2012, 02:40 PM | #8294 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
|
Unless you are stating that Patty being real is the default position?
Person A has claimed to be the wearer no other person has claimed as such most reasonable estimations of the height and weight of the "creature" fall within the measurements of the claimant. Making his claim "reasonable" but not "proven". Claimant was (and still is) an associate of the filmmakers/hoaxers Why ,in the question of "Who is in the suit?" would BH NOT be the default position? |
27th April 2012, 02:41 PM | #8295 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
|
|
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too… |
|
27th April 2012, 02:44 PM | #8296 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
|
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
27th April 2012, 02:45 PM | #8297 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
|
It just struck me the first time I saw him walking how similar it was to Patty.
Not that any of us will ever know for sure either way. But I have to admit, one of the saddest days of my young life was when I first had to deal with the fact Patty was most probably a fake..... That sucked! lol But, it's better to be saddened by the truth than revel in a fallacy I reckon. |
27th April 2012, 02:59 PM | #8298 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Did you not see my list of facts that point towards BH?
What facts do you have that point to anyone else other than Bob being in the suit? Until and unless you provide something for us to consider you will be rightfully ignored and/or be considered a troll, and that's a shame because I don't think you're a troll. |
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
27th April 2012, 03:00 PM | #8299 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
The only thing the polygraph has ever, or will ever prove, is a person's knowledge of an event. The end.
Not whether or not he is lying about it. Not even whether or not his telling thereof is true or false. I will however agree to the ways in which the above statements has led to positive proof of somebody's implicit involvement in a crime was proven by polygraph (spoilered for those that don't care) |
27th April 2012, 03:05 PM | #8300 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
|
So you are claiming that those who administer Polygraphs (and analyze the results) are not being truthful when they determine that the suspect's statements are "deceptive"? Cuz that' s what they say, The say whether or not they think the guy is lying or not. We aren't in court, he passed a lie detector test, while this isn't the be all and end all, it DOES strengthen his case. |
27th April 2012, 03:07 PM | #8301 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
|
So, stick with the pretense of being so devastated about a fallacy you are peddling.
Bob's direct testimony is just that: direct testimony. It is not hearsay. Are you really this, uh uninformed - or think so little of us to make that argument? We are about to witness the old bait-and-switch. You leap deceptively from Bob's claims to something very different: The lie-detector support for those claims in addition to the claims themselves: [quote]I forgot your infallible Lie Detector. [quote/]
Quote:
You are pretending that removing the lie detector removes Bob's testimony itself, which it clearly does not.
Quote:
The problem now is the longer you stay the worse it is going to get with all the inconsistencies. But our top men were on to you right away, and I am a late arrival to the party. |
Last edited by AlaskaBushPilot; 27th April 2012 at 03:09 PM. Reason: post isn't quoting right and I have to go to work! |
|
27th April 2012, 03:17 PM | #8302 | ||
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
Oh, you mean that disrespectful post of yours with the thinly veiled insults?
Are you surprised that I ignored it's contents after "Sweaty"? Seeing as you insist: - Bob H. is the only recorded/public admittance to being the suit wearer. So? Proves nothing. If I came forward and said I was Jack the Ripper, does that make it true simply because nobody else has ever said the same? - THE suit? No I'm affraid that will have to go as circumstancial evidence. No proof exists, other than hearsay as to this suit being THE suit. Hearsay amounts to nothing whatsoever. Further to the hearsay, there is no proof offered whatsoever, that the suit mentioned or discussed was the suit in question. Oh my isn't that convenient that he doesn't have it anymore? - First, start with the assumption that he is telling the truth? Nice investigative work! The only thing you can possibly prove from this is that Bob's motivation has always been money. Nothing more. - The only thing this proves is that Bob's horse was on the scene. Not Bob. Unless you are saying that Bob is in a horse suit, at the same time as being in a monkey suit? Me borrowing anything to anyone is proof of nothing more than the facts a) I had that thing b) That person wanted/needed said thing It's not even reasonable to imply that we knew each other. I don't know my neighbour's last name, but I borrowed him my PS3 controller once for a weekend... - No proof that such an exchange took place, nor that the suit was ever proven (other than above hearsay) to be in Bob's possession in the first place. Yet again more unsubstantiated hearsay. The only fact we can deduct from this matter is that Bob got his horse back from Patterson. All I see is circumstantial (and even then extremely weak) evidence of nothing more than knowing each other, one borrowing the other's horse, and another who happened to have any one of a million monkey suits in his car. The only verification for these matters is by hearsay. http://brainchildblog.com/wp-content...ough-sieve.jpg
|
||
27th April 2012, 03:22 PM | #8303 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
Bait-and-switch? I didn't bring up the lie detector!
It was presented ipso facto as if I am to say "Oh! But of course he wasn't lying then!". Polygraph neither strengthens, weakens, proves, disproves, or plays any role whatsoever in Bob's statement being true or false. Bob's statement is nothing but that. Words coming out of his mouth. Not a shred of tangibly conclusive evidence. The only corroboration he brings, is the testimony's of... other random people he knew? People in a bar. His sister. Postman Pat and his black-and-white cat. Circumstantial, backed up by nothing more than hearsay from around the town. |
27th April 2012, 03:34 PM | #8304 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
|
I get the sneaking suspicion you are a bleever masquerading as a skeptic, in fact I have a fairly good idea I know who.........
But ,in case I am mistaken, who do you think is the most likely person to be in the suit? (which is all anyone has stated, no one person has said "we know it was BH in the suit" Given the evidence, the statements, and yes the polygraph, BH is the prime suspect in the "Who Wore the Patty Suit" case. If new evidence emerges clearing Bob, then we will analyze it at that time. |
27th April 2012, 03:41 PM | #8305 |
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
|
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg:
The polygraph is a proven, reliable, investigative tool.. One of it's most effective uses, is establishing who is, or is not, willing to submit to an examination. Nothing in your reply, addressed the substance of my post.. Are you by chance running for public office ? |
__________________
Maybe later.... |
|
27th April 2012, 03:43 PM | #8306 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
27th April 2012, 03:51 PM | #8307 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
I have never been a registered member on any forum on skeptism, bigfoot, UFO's, any religion, or any such topic in the history of ever.
You are welcome to search for, and I am most willing to list my active forum participations, as here follows (spoilered for "dgaf") As to your question, see my quoted reponse from a few replies back. Neither is it my intent to further an investigation into any other likely suspects. Plainly put, my statement "PGF is fake" does not, like everybody else, grasp at Bob's straws to validate themselves. Bob's validity is not required. |
27th April 2012, 03:55 PM | #8308 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
wrong again; its not hearsay. It's eyewitness statements. You have all the footer fallacies down pat. Which is fine. You can memorize whatever you want. Not standing up in court doesn't mean polygraphs aren't useful, sometimes just the response to the request speaks volumes. Bob Gimlin will never take one, I guarantee you that. They are widely employed across industry and government. Footers widely request trial-quality proof against bigfoot, but accept the wild claims of almost anyone when it comes to "evidence" "for" "bigfoot." So you fit the bill.
How do you feel about the existence of bigfoot? Do you think bigfoot exists as a flesh and blood animal resembling the popular definition? 8 feet tall, 400 lbs, hinged feet, glowing eyes, great running speed upright but also goes on all fours, eats anything, no fire or tool use, lives in family units, can't be photographed, eats zagnut bars, breaks off the tops of trees, howls at night, sneaks into camps, habituates to humans, carries off humans, throws stones at humans, etc. The strange thing about your statements about Bob H is that they all have that ill-informed quality (footers don't actually read The Making of Bigfoot) and some sound if you have a personal grudge against Bob. That is footer-style stuff. I mean, you can get your info wherever you wish but learning about Bob H from the footers is likely to give one some mistaken ideas. |
__________________
"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 |
|
27th April 2012, 04:07 PM | #8309 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
|
27th April 2012, 04:14 PM | #8310 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
wheunis: What evidence or testimony in particular makes you think he's absolutely not the MIAS actor? (speaking of Bob Heironimus)
|
27th April 2012, 04:22 PM | #8311 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
He's a dishonest person, with only money as a verifiable motive.
Implicit in his "confession", bares the possibility that even if considered true - makes him a fraudster. From his own mouth, this was about money he felt cheated out of. So lets consider. He was willing to tarnish his own reputation, for money. Not for truth. Not for a guilty conscience. So if he had so little self-respect that he was able to disregard his own reputation for money, I find it very likely and extremely probable that he has no respect for the truth either. At this measure, I find it most likely that every single word out of his mouth, with exception to his name, is more likely to be false than it is true. TL;DR - It's the motive that convinced me. |
27th April 2012, 04:25 PM | #8312 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
How do you know he's a dishonest person?
Since you agree that the PGF was a hoax what are your thoughts about Gimlin? |
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
27th April 2012, 04:52 PM | #8313 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
IF we are to believe his confession, it implies he willingly and knowingly part-took in a hoax.
Wouldn't you call that dishonest? IMO, any man willing to sell his own reputation is a dishonest man. Such men will twist anything to get at what they want. In Bob's case, I very much believe that to be money. “I was never paid a dime for that, no sir,” “Sure I want to make some money. I feel that after 36 years I should get some of it.” - Bob Heironimus Gimlin was probably Patterson's biggest mistake. Gimlin got loose-lipped once (or twice, memory fails me) and almost completely fuddled the story into the open. He generally seems to me like an odious little man. I'm guessing you're not really asking my opinion on his character though. I haven't looked much into Gimlin, as it's rather hard to find coherent information on him. Heck, I've even seen the fansites not agree on everything Gimlin! SPECULATION WARNING! Complete unsupported speculation on my own part almost wants to suggest that Gimlin may have been the "main player" in all this. Most likely he wanted out. Decided it was a bad idea. Planned to cancel the whole thing a day or so before? I think Patterson got hostile from this point, possibly threatening Gimlin. Only reason for this is the statement he made about why he hasn't publicly taken part in the debacle, and his answer was something about not wanting to discredit his wife and endanger her banking career. (?whut? Scallywag with honor/loyalty?!) |
27th April 2012, 04:56 PM | #8314 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
|
27th April 2012, 05:09 PM | #8315 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
|
27th April 2012, 05:30 PM | #8316 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
Somewhat of an appeal:
Does anyone have a link to a high quality version of this? http://youtu.be/nc--kJ1EpZM Dunno if I just noticed something due to bad quality. |
27th April 2012, 05:43 PM | #8317 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Wow, you may have discovered something completely unknown here.
Please link us to some bigfoot believer sites that do not adore Gimlin so we can read up on the believers that don't believe him, and did you call him a 'little man'? Gimlin? Are you mistaking Gimlin for Patterson? It's nice that he stayed away from the bigfoot notoriety for his wife's career. He's the salt of the earth. But if you dig a little deeper you'll discover the real story. |
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
27th April 2012, 06:10 PM | #8319 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
|
Our friend stated that no evidence whatsoever would convince him that Bob Heironimus was in the suit and he has systematically gone about proving that. This is the one thing where we can trust his word. But I don't think he meant to be so obvious about his bias.
Quote:
This is so odd too as a diversion:
Quote:
It is the real bitterness towards Bob Heironimus. That comes through loud and clear, and tips our hand to the fact Bob Heironimus must be your worst enemy. You clearly have a filter where nothing good about Bob Heironimus is admitted, and only bad. Except there is only one bad thing you can say about him, in his whole 70 years: that he got duped into participating in 1967. A "sucker" as he called himself. None of his life before that and none after matters. You think you are telling us about Bob Heironimus. But you are telling us a lot more about yourself. This left-field thing about Gimlin being the "main player". WTF?! It seems like such a contrived "position" to pad a made-up persona with. How can someone be so clueless and come in with such wrath at Bob Heironimus. So many signs of deception I can't say WTF is going on with our poster other than really hating on Bob Heironimus. |
27th April 2012, 06:33 PM | #8320 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
|
I have nothing to hide. Yes, I am incredibly Biased towards Bob H.
And Gimlin. And Patterson. Of course I am biased! You wouldn't be biased to the "testimony" of a bunch of fraudsters?! Hell yeah, I hate all 3 of em! Nothing would please me more than the PGF, and all 3 of it's participants, being outed as a hoax from a bunch of conmen on every account. Where have I not been clear on it? I have no intent to hide my bias against these types of men. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|