BigfootWeekend September Expedition

Friday, April 12, 2013

Video of Bob Heironimus Walking With Patty Beside Him, Still Claims Patterson-Gimlin Owes Him $1,000


Is the the figure on the left Bob Heironimus in a monkeysuit? Bob gives himself credit for being the person who was famously filmed by Roger Patterson walking in the "suit" at Bluff Creek, CA back in 1967. He also claims that Patterson and Gimlin never paid him the $1000 they agreed on for wearing the "monkey suit." Is Bob telling the truth? Watching this video, it's hard to believe that the figure on the left is a man in a suit.

If you look closely, Bob's profile does not match the creature at all. His stride and arms are way too short for him to be the person in the suit. Also, when he's walking, you can see that his knees (and feet) are nearly not as highly raised as the Patterson creature.


Here how you can also tell that Patty is not Bob H. in a suit. Think Thunker says the angle of Patty's shin rise is 73 degrees whereas most humans and even Bob himself has a 52 degrees shin rise. That's a striking 21 degrees difference between Bigfoot and us!

164 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Pgf was a hoax. It doesn't matter who was in the suit or any of the stories. Hoax

      Delete
    2. Your not going to spark up an argument, its old and tired. Go away.

      Delete
    3. Its real. Nobody believes me.

      Guys. I'm super serial right now!

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. pgf = cowboy mountain varmits having fun.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, pretty hard to believe it's a guy in the suit with all the killer evidence we've had since then to prove otherwise. I want to believe, I just...I just Can't. Too many Turd Burgers out there.

      Delete
    7. Because you're insane most likely, just like 1:23.

      Delete
    8. I agree with what Mr Bandini just said 100%.

      Delete
    9. Where did they get footage of bigfoot dancing?

      Delete
    10. If I had fake big feet on the angle of my walk would go up to get the oversized foot back in front of me!? Otherwise the fake toes would drake on the ground!

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Bob H. Is an American hero.

      Delete
    2. Bob H. is an american hemroid

      Delete
    3. Bob H. is an American liar.

      Delete
    4. This guy BOB did not even know whare the film site was years ago when he started these lies

      This guy BOB has changed his story to many times over the years -

      This guy BOB has a pic of him with the supposed Patty BF suite, when the photo came out people went to see it and apparently he lost it -

      Bob has a very low IQ, no offense to him but he is a dumb ass, for some reason low IQ People can pass lie detectors while lying - remember the Green River Killer? That's just one there are many dumb people that can lie while taking a lie detector test and pass!

      And so on, and so on

      Delete
    5. I remember years ago when Bob claimed that this was a hoax & it was him in a Bigfoot costume. The problem is that he claimed it was filmed in Washington State, his home state, he had no clue that it was filmed in California !!

      You see, when a person is caught in a lie they will lie some more to cover their lies , that's what this guy has been doing! The story will always change and excuses will always be made! Oh, I lost the Bigfoot suit! He made it from this! He made it from that! No this, no that! He can wait 5 - 10 years and do it again, this has been going on for years!

      Delete
    6. Yes people who lie very often have to keep it up in order to cover all the other lies. They dig themselves deeper and deeper in a hole. And what's the point? In the end the truth comes out and they end up being seen for exactly what they are, a liar. Once you get that label it's almost impossible to get rid of.

      Delete
    7. bob also passed lie detector tests with flying colors.

      Delete
    8. Bob lied so much he actually believes it?

      Delete
    9. Yup he's the real fake here not Patty, he probably got a big fat check for lying.

      Delete
  3. The Big Bad Schoolyard BullyFriday, April 12, 2013 at 1:10:00 PM PDT

    Good old Bob, he was Rick Dyer before there even was a Rick Dyer

    ReplyDelete
  4. Clearly Bob H was the creature. The head movement, the arms, these match PERFECTLY. Granted his gate isn't the same as it was as a 20-something but I guarantee if I was in a suit with boots and trying create a creature walk I could the magical 73 degrees. On top of that, how do film/video "experts" ignore the laughable fake butt of the beast. It's stuffed just like Bob said it was. The truth is about more than the video evidence, it's also about the facts surrounding the situation. Bob's passed 2 lie detector tests, too. With nothing to gain. Use your head people. Occam's razor, here. Ironically, the film that skyrocketed interest in BF is a fake, though the creature is very real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lets not forget roger drew the exact same female bigfoot a year earlier hairy titties n all.

      Delete
    2. Not the legs, no, they weren't Bob's. The right thigh meat and muscle mass shake and vibration during the stumble and turn shows there is no layer covering the flesh of the legs; there is no outer layer of suit or costume covering the legs. The legs are bare other than hair growing out of the skin.

      The thighs are also too large to be Bob's. This is simple fact observable on the stabilized PGF. Also the enormous spinal erectors make Bob's claim laughable. These are clear for an extended time at the end of the film.

      The attemted recreation of the film with Bob in a costume is a stop-motion-like-jerky piece of junk which is a pure joke and nothing close to the PGF, not even remotely near.

      Delete
    3. No incorrect 1:24: Roger drew a portrait of a creature according to Ostman's description.

      You will note that drawing shows a creature with a flat-top skull, nothing like Patty's. Roger drew what Ostman described. The description is Ostman's, not Roger's.

      This is a common misnomer and sad attempt skewing public opinion.

      Delete
    4. Plus, strap on over sized feet and see what angle your shin is at. I think the back and butt of the suit is heavily padded giving a pretty effective impression of inhuman proportion. I was convinced it was real for a long, long time. Now when I see the film, I can't past the problems. The lower hip between the butt and groin looks pretty telling, and on the thigh there's that weird line that makes it looks like its wearing a pair of shorts. Heironimus was among the cast members in Patterson's planned film. I'd love to think its real, but I just don't anymore.

      Delete
    5. We all can walk the 'magical' 73 degree's but not like the creature in the film. How you can conclude that 'boots' would help is beyond me.

      Bob H had lots to gain. He's the most notorious liar in bigfootery.

      MMG

      Delete
    6. the shin angle stuff is pure b.s. if you're wearing "shoe feet" with a toe that extends far beyond the normal toe location then you would have to raise the leg further to avoid scraping the ground, tripping or falling. what a crummy suit too. irony? you sure got that right!

      Delete
    7. The shin angle actually proves it was a hoax. It proves it was big fake feet. Footers are too dumb to understand this.

      Delete
    8. Your too dumb to understand that none of what you said is a valid argument. Seriously, you think the bigger foot in a suit made his gate raise 20 degrees? Thats ridiculous and based on no data whatsoever. That is just a bold empty statement with no real evidence supporting it. Try what you just described and see what happens. Nobody has been able to reproduce the patterson film, some have tried with lots of resources but nobody comes close to what is on that film. It doesnt "prove it was a hoax" thats just ignorant and stupid to say.

      Delete
    9. ^ you're to dumb to understand it's not.

      Delete
    10. 16mm film has a finite amount of information on it, very small amount actually. the digital "enhancements" this film has gone through has added stuff that just wasn't there. now everybody thinks they're seeing "muscle mass shake", muscle tone and any manner of things that weren't on the film emulsion. the tiny clumps of dye crystals in the film base only have so much material. if you enlarge the image you will see the clumps that make the image not more detail of the subject. wide-angle lens, small film format, far distance from the subject, camera shake; it all leads to wishful thinking.

      Delete
    11. I once imitated a baboon walk perfectly so I had to be that fake baboon at the Zoo! Anon 1:11 listen how stupid you sound . With a little practice anyone can imitate the walk, but the can't fake the rest of it moron.

      Delete
    12. Charles Bronson what happens to your leg rise angle when you walk with flippers on?

      Delete
    13. Watch Lloyd Pye everything you know is wrong on YouTube at least have facts behind your argument

      Delete
    14. The National Bigfoot Bigot Coalition thanks anonymous 1:11 for his splendid display of disinformation propoganda that would make Adolf Hitler weep in adoration. It is hard to find good people like you, that can get the job done these days. Drop by JREF and give us your address so that our timber industry supporters know where to send the check for services rendered. We don't want dirty money passing through our hands, with our tax-free status.

      Your next assignment, should you choose to accept it, will be to debunk the Bill Munns presentation in Texas. http://woodape.org/index.php/news/news/48-news/230
      We will pay you double what you make here. We paid off Heironimus a long time ago, and he is still milking it. He boasts that this was the easiest money he ever made for not being within 400 miles of the jobsite, at Bluff Creek. Had he actually been there, then he would owe California State taxes. But he wasn't so his escaped that tax trap. Keep up the good work, and don't tell anyone that Patty was 7'-3" whereas you are only 6 foot, soaking wet.

      Delete
    15. Agree 1:29. Ex-believer myself. The "short line" is the top of the waders - so obvious now. And the magic 73? Runners go over 90, so BH was just walking faster, which he clearly was in the video. It's about more than the film "proof", anyway (hello MK!). I've heard BH interviewed and clearly he's not lying, no gain, real guy. It all boils down to... FAKE. Agree - ironic!

      Delete
    16. 1:54 bullseye! 2:05 - just start with facts, not a conspiracy theory, and you'll find your way. 7'3"? ha ha ha...

      Delete
    17. The diaper butt seals it for me as the PGF being a hoax.

      Delete
    18. Mr. Bronson like to pop in and keep talking about how Real shit is with a weak ass argument of "Prove it's Not Real." Get a Fucking, Clue..Sir. You've Got Nothing and You Obviously Like it.

      By the Way, Loved you in Death Wish. You were a Bad Ass back in the Day. What the hell happened?

      Delete
    19. The enhanced versions improved contrast and you can almost see the shoulder pads. Almost. You can't say they are not there either. Arguments about arm ratios(or any other geometric quantities) are pointless. Not enough info.

      What we know: Roger was an entertainer, the development time-line is a deal breaker and there is no other evidence for Bluff Creek bigfoots before or after the filming.

      It is a hoax...

      Delete
    20. Nice try losers we all know you're not footers with a serious interest in this but cover-uppers and you too know it's no hoax, for the simple fact the proportions don't match at all heck nothing matches there at all. Least of all any mask.;)
      Bob h. or anybody could not reach all the four corners of her body, she's too tall with that long torso and too wide you can't reach the head and the neck's all wrongly positioned for it too. Shoulders too wide for a man's short arms to fill, let alone dropping down into extended arms uh-uh sorry buds can't be done not then not now. You'll sleep better once you realize that so cut the charade.

      Delete
    21. 4:28, none of your points can be born out by the film. how do you know how wide the shoulders are? the shot is a profile! the proportions are possible for a man in a suit. there's actually nothing unusual about the figure that could preclude it from being a human. "she's too tall". how do you know how tall she is, you have absolutely no reference. "can't be done"? what, a guy in a suit can't walk up a stream bed? personally i believe there are hominids living in our wildernesses but this classic film didn't catch one. this is what it looks like; a crazy money making scheme thought up by some cowboy locals. it's too bad the brains behind the operation died within five years, he was probably clever enough to have milked plenty of cash out of the effort.

      Delete
    22. Roger Patterson is dead. Bob Gimlin is not. He's telling the truth.

      Delete
    23. So how fast and fluid could you walk with large fake feet attached?

      The subject in the film walks in a smooth, natural fashion. Not like some clumsy Hoaxer with clown feet on.

      Delighted you JREFers spend so much time on this. You may have strong opinions and views but no solid evidence to support your claims.

      Welcome to the club guys. ;0)

      MMG

      Delete
    24. It's suspicious. But the film is just not good enough to know for sure either way, as there are hints pointing to both conclusions. The most damning thing in my eyes is that people keep saying bigfoots are very cautious and aware of cameras, and yet this one (and only this one) walks out in plain view. No other potentially real film evidence is so clear and perfect. PGF might just be a rather convincing fake that these guys somehow managed to produce.

      Delete
    25. It's not, it's the real deal real squatch unfortunately we're surrounded here by morons payed to ridicule this subject, it's just a well-oiled propaganda machine with the means to keep the cover-up going until one day it bursts right open somehow or whenever these beings decide it's time to reveal themselves to us.
      Until then the order is still on to avoid openness almost at any cost it seems, were that not the case we'd never see so much nonsense and fighting against what they claim is just a silly subject but actually a very important new discovery if real. There's no if, of course.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. Patty is not a bigfoot.

      Delete
    2. Yes she is, probably gave birth to you.

      Delete
    3. Nope Patty is Bob or who ever wanted to play monkey that day. Can one of you great scientific analyst please explain to me what the horizontal line is on the right thigh... Does Bigfoot have horizontal muscels in its thighs? All ove you creatively, say you can see the muscels move in the legs... Then explain the horizontal line in the thigh... I'm actually shocked at the complete morons here that cling to the last tad bit of evidence (not) with the dilegnece of a bible thumper. Man in a monkey suite.

      Once a Footard believer now a Skeptard and proud of it LMAO

      Delete
    4. Bob may not have been Patty, but someone was in that costume.

      Delete
    5. 8:09 contradicts himself completely by the monkey mention, monkeys have tails apes don't.
      Patty doesn't have a tail nor is she really an ape in the nonhuman term, she's a human as the Indians have been saying all the time.
      Where she's from originally who knows but it shows a need to cover it up by the suit idiots here.
      The lines these nutters pretend they see is skin showing under her hair, it all depends on the angle you watch her from as she walks across the sand sometimes it's visible other times not.

      Delete
  6. A SKEPTARD'S LAMENT

    "I was sure there was no apeman
    As I opened up the fridge,
    'Till the voice of Dr. Meldrum
    Pointed out the dermal ridge.

    I on raging rampage went,
    I called the PGF a hoax,
    'Till the massive muscle movement
    Told there are such great big folks!

    Still I try, believing only
    In those bikes invisible,
    About all else I cry 'That's hoaxy!'--
    There's Mel's dirigible!

    Pranksters yes I'm truly certain
    They do dermal ridges carve,
    And plant those footprints! Yes it's curtains--
    Believers, they will starve!

    About that pesky PGF:
    A suit and that's a fact,
    Worn by Bob Hilarious
    Who bought it off the rack.

    I refuse to watch it stabilized,
    I turn the other way,
    I claim that all is fable-ized
    In my irritating bray.

    But haunted have my dreams become
    By Patty's moving muscle,
    And dermal ridge, like on my thumb,
    Show apemen really hustle!

    I cling to Bob Hilarious,
    His suit, his hoaxing clan,
    And pray the clues won't bury us
    And prove the big apeman."

    Skeptard lonely, sips a beer
    'Mid shadowed living room,
    Sasquatch silhouette so queer
    At window, spells his doom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too much reading.

      Got monkey?

      Delete
    2. There are many many suits that can be tailored to any spec. What there isn't however is a bigfoot. Not anywhere.

      Delete
    3. No because they still cant produce it. There is lots of evidence but you choose to ignore it.

      Delete
    4. Too many hoaxing jackasses
      The clips they all do suck
      Not one good film since Patty
      I guess you're out of luck

      Of all of the bigfoot hoaxers
      Who is honest to the core?
      Often known charlatans
      Who hoaxed bigfoot once before

      So if you believe in bigfoot
      Don't sit upon your chair
      Get out there and shoot one
      Make sure it's not a bear

      So, if you believe in bigfoot
      Hit one with your truck
      If you do not find one
      I guess you're out of luck






      So go and shoot a bigfoot
      Hit one with your car
      Take one out with a grenade





      Someday they say they'll find one.
      Hit one with a truck.
      Then all of you will be smiling
      What amazing luck.

      Delete
    5. You BFE guys try to hard to act passionate but it's alright we know you're really part of the orchestrated denial, you even have mainstream science front man Meldrum on your side.

      lol

      Delete
    6. Prof. Meldrum is not part of a cover-up conspiracy, nor are any of us goof-balls that hang around here. I'm telling you for the sake of good fellowship that you need to rethink your position...

      Delete
    7. What's with the poets? A grenade? Something doesn't rhythm there.

      Delete
    8. I'll take the skeptards lament over the delusions of a grown adult who believes a half man half ape or a wild ape that has never been documented empirically any day.

      Delete
    9. Of course you would because you're a scared sheep, we're a species afraid of the truth and like drunks love to hide the facts preferring to live a lie rather than know the ugly realities. We could live next to Auschwitz and not care as long as it doesn't affect our daily affairs, that's exactly why the powers that be can get away with it because we're now conditioned to basically not care. It's a very successful cover-up because they know the current state of the human psyche that we're not quite ready yet, Bigfoot or UFOS same plot. And yes Meldrum's part of it like his colleagues in the UFO field, a little bit of truth here a little lie there.

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. Like Matt or Jeff or Bart or Tom Biscuit.

      Delete
  8. u got to love the writers ridicule of the 2 figures matching. i guess extensions etc..wouldnt occur to someone trying to pull of a BF hoax

    ReplyDelete
  9. i love the fact the voiceover sarcastic dick with his magical shin rise fugures. how the hell do we know thats true.

    je can write any number down i dont know how to test that theory on mypc.if someone else does,and can be bothered, id love to kow if every human walksat this shin rise. surely height,weight all comes into it.also etended boots on etc may change shin angles anyway

    for the guy who said pattersson drew ossman version of the femalequatch.ive never heard that.all ive heard and readis he drew a female squatch ,in his book,a year before,eitherway it was the exact same figure as the one he filmed whether it was ossmans or his version of a female. so to film it would be highly doubtful. also why know other BF films that show the same aty /ossman versions of a bf. all BS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He isnt a scientist nor is he claiming to be. Just showing you what is blatently obvious to the naked eye when looked at. He hand fed you the info, science does not do that.

      Delete
    2. ^wanna be believer who reads Bigfoot blogs each day.

      Delete
    3. it's common sense, it's not magic, if you can't see that he is right, then your as blind as you are stupid.

      Delete
    4. Trolls love the PGF it's their fave because they know it's no suit.

      Delete
  10. If you really want the truth watch Lloyd Pye everything you know is wrong on YouTube and learn something

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, besides myself he's the most sensible person ever to comment anything here.

      Delete
  11. Just in this cheesy low quality video you can see arm length differences, above and below the elbow and total length, and leg length and stride differences. Sorry Bob. No way, No how.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. rukm? tht's bc the "animal" is zoomed in on! lol

      Delete
    2. Danm right about that 2:02 the denying crowd here all know it too that's why it's fun for them to mock it because that's what you do to the unknown. Although this isn't really that unknown to them they're merely pretending of course.

      Delete
  12. Season 9 of "Deadliest Catch" premieres Tuesday, April 16, at 9 p.m. ET/PT on Discovery. the real deal folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is he gonna catch a bigfoot?

      Delete
    2. Nothing like watching a bunch of men picking crabs. Oh wait that doesn't sound right.Never mind. On to P&G you can't fake science. The movie has been picked over and over. They cannot reproduce what is going on in the film and for them to add boobs, who would think of that back then. It's the real deal folks.

      Delete
    3. who would think of adding boobs? a guy who likes boobs maybe? that idea undoubtably got unanimous approval.

      Delete
    4. Female primates exist too you know, most wannabe bf debunkers ignore these rather significant realities of mammal life.

      Delete
  13. It is SO obvious that his body doesn't even come close to the body proportions of Patty. It's laughable!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly and we laugh very hard at the skeptards, in a way they're really laughing with us because they're aware it's real. The only way it could be bob h. is if he provided his own boobs, that's the only thing with any serious resemblance.

      Delete
  14. fat bob is a fat liar. fat bob is a fat blob. fat bob is bob.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well that video convinced me, after all these years I thought it wasn't real but it does seem compelling.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Do you JREF chimps still bleeve that lying sack of shit Kitakaze found the suit but gave it all up to be an international diplomat ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..lol..I thought he was a secret agent...

      Delete
  17. Bob H is was you call a grandstander. He doesn't strive to gain financially but he's an attention seeker. Although it looks like is still trying to swindle 1k from Patterson. I think it sooooo funny sceptics of the film will discount Patty but will say a horrible suit like the idiot at the conference center presented Bob H claimed to have worn That a 5 yr old would agree it never looked like Patty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The gorilla suit that Patterson modified for Heironimus to wear in the footage is long gone.

      It's often been said that Patterson and Gimlin were just a couple of hicks who were too stupid to create a great costume and pull of such a hoax. Really? How does anyone know this? Just because Roger Patterson was a cowboy who worked in rodeos that makes him stupid? Patterson was an expert leather worker with a complete set of professional tools. He not only had the skills to create an excellent costume, he had the professional tools to do it.

      Any suit produced recently is obviously not going to be the same and will not have Patterson's expertise involved in its creation. The suit used in the PGF is a one of a kind that will not and cannot be precisely duplicated.

      Delete
    2. You don't know how he bulked it up to give the impression of mass and solidity, so it is not just a question of making the same suit.

      Anyway, the event could not withstand the scrutiny it would have received in this day-all other things being equal. Maybe Dahindren thought it was a hoax because of the time line(and other reasons). Maybe they all did...

      Delete
    3. One thing's for sure, dabbling with this subject's made 3:55 completely mad. If Roger by some miracle did this why did he not start a Hollywood career, this looks more real than anything Chambers ever created not to mention Smith or Baker later. This footage is indeed the real thing genuine squatch, the one that got away that shouldn't have it's the one they've regretted deeply (whoever okayed its release) and thus been trying to beat down ever since as a suit.
      That idea naturally only morons will fall for as it's absurd, given the nature of the figure on screen a figure that anatomically matches many reports before and since including 1924 abductee Albert Ostman's later account.

      Delete
    4. ^The pro's you mention have their work displayed on crisp, expensive film stock. Their work is also given extended screen time at varying distances and the actors in them do more then walk across flat terrain.
      Having said that, I will agree that if Roger made a suit he did a remarkable job...

      Delete
    5. Folks, it's not that great that a costume can't be ruled out. Plenty of Hollywood costume experts have labeled the PGF a hoax.

      Delete
    6. ^name one! There has never been one single Hollywood Costume expert that has ever said that!

      Delete
    7. Wrong. Multiple academy award winner Stan Winston said that the PGF is a man in a fur suit.

      Delete
    8. And they were all wrong basically jealous of not being capable of anything looking as life-like themselves. Just like everybody else they bought into the suit idea of course to make their own work appear better which it's clearly never been.

      Delete
  18. I'd say that Patterson's estate and Gimlin owe Heironimus $1,000. Maybe Gimlin can give him a percentage of what he makes speaking at bigfoot conferences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gimlin missed the biggest conference of all time when he passed on attending the initial screening. Roger and Al had balls of brass to sit in that room with those guys and lie to their faces. Its a shame we will never know the real story.

      Delete
    2. Gimlin undoubtedly knows more than he's telling currently hope he'll wise up before it's too late. By that I mean he obviously knows and agrees that Patty's no hoax, but his reasons for being there at BC may not be what's been told so far it just may be more sinister than a harmless week-long trek.

      Delete
    3. Gimlin's gets paid to offer us nothing with his conference speeches and we like it.

      Delete
    4. Gimlin may have been hoaxed himself. What better way to prove the veracity of the film?

      Delete
  19. Erickson bailed, Olympic Project came up lame and the Ketchum paper was a bust. Balls-up dead, done deals. No need to fret, we will always have to PGF to talk about. Now about that time-line..lol...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't seem to want to understand it man, Ketchum proved that this species exists but mainstream science has a status quo agenda much like it does with ET life to not rock the boat of creation/religion that we've built up all around our societies. False as those may be sadly it's so, we are living a lie probably in a world full of realities too strange for our caveman brain to fathom. Therefore none of this can be revealed or not just yet anyway, that's the whole purpose of lame debunker sites like the Randi erectioners foundation or indeed this place or government silence. All acts of stalling and gaining more time.

      Delete
    2. Well, I don't think Ketchum is legit. Either way it would be awesome if what you say is in fact close to the actual truth...

      Delete
    3. It is. If you can get the press and media to play ball, as they do, then a cover-up is not problematic when info's simply cut off the chain.

      Delete
  20. Anyone who questions the PGF owes it to themselves to watch this recent presentation by Bill Munns, who has done extensive research into the PGF. He pretty much demolishes the skeptical arguments against the film (Arm crease, thigh line, bulgy butt, etc) by showing 1) how each of those things is pretty impossible in a costume and 2) there are real and common correlatives to all of those things in flabby human beings. Really watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O0a5eaoR1U0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't stop laughing. Especially when he "proved" that floppy tits are floppy. The dude has lost the plot.

      Delete
    2. Ha Ha! Yeah, that was great! He proved that real breasts are floppy! What an idiot! Except what he actually demonstrated is that costume tits ARE NOT floppy. Apparently you were just mesmerized by jiggle tits and forgot to actually pay attention to what was being said.

      Delete
    3. The unspoken premise seems to be "If it is a suit, there is no interior padding of any kind to any of the parts". From there they prove it is not a suit. We DO NOT KNOW what is under the costume, where it is and what it is made of. It could be muscle and sinew, yes, but we do not know...

      Delete
  21. If Bob H really is owed that much money why not bring it to small claims court ?
    Bob H is a liar. 40 years later they still can't reproduce a decent lookalike suit even with today's better advances in costume making

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep saying "they can't reproduce" the suit. Got monkey?

      Delete
    2. Maybe it could be done with some help. Next time you see Gimlin, ask him what kind of shoulder pads they used and how the headpiece or pieces were constructed. Its a start...

      Delete
    3. The only idiots that believe Bob H's story out of hand are the JREF chimps.

      Delete
    4. Right, and see how that monkey dude lurks here still he's in fact always here, that is when he's not at the local zoo looking at monkeys with a boner.

      Delete
    5. well i'll be a monkey's uncle.
      I've seen a lot of horror/sci fi movies from around that era and the only ones that come close to looking somewhat authentic were the really big budget ones. Unless Patterson had a big financial backer I just can't se how he could have pulled it of to make the muscles look like they are moving. If it's a fake he should have been working in hollywood

      Delete
    6. His suit looks great, but the actor does not do anything. If the actor can chase Charlton Heston or fling a stick at the moon with all his might without the costume tearing, than Roger is hired...

      Delete
    7. Got Monkey dude is the biggest retard on this site!

      Delete
  22. Are there still dumb asses that believe this was a person in a suit and it was Bob H?

    If you want to see a high tech gorilla suit of the day watch a re run of the Beverly Hillbillies with Herbie the gorilla, and then come back here and insist it was a man in a magical suit that no one could fabricate at that time, and doubtful they could today as no one has.

    The only one that is owed 1000.00 dollars is me. I met Bob in a local Yakima bar in 1996 when he began spinning his tale to me. I bet him 1000.00 dollars at the time that he was not in the suit. I asked him to take me to the site. He did know it was in California, but that was as close as he could get.
    Incidentally the tale he spun that night has changed five times over the years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct, that guy H. is full of shit I think he's on a feds payroll or somebody's anyway. I bet whoever's paying him are terribly embarrassed at how poorly a job he does at it, which is probably why they've likely now told him to shut up.

      Delete
    2. herbie the gorilla? you want to hold up the beverly hillbillies up as the state of the art of costume technology? how about just two months before the pgf event "planet of the apes" just finished shooting. now theres about 200 suits of excellent quality, much better than patterson's. the "it can't be recreated" argument is weak, of course it can be recreated. it was!

      Delete
    3. herbie the gorilla ?
      it can be reacreated but only at a high cost that only big hollywood movies could have done

      Delete
  23. I don't know about the Heironimus thing. But the video is really good at isolating the Patterson-Gimlin film subject and demonstrates how fake the subject's back and ass are.

    That ass is so fake, it's not even funny.

    Buttocks that remain immobile while the legs are moving. Yeah, okay...

    It's like looking at a man walking with a barrel around his waist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup. That diaper butt gives it away as being a hoax.

      Delete
    2. Moreover, there is a suit in-surprise,surprise-Al DeAtley's house. Bill Munn's said so on a BFF thread.

      However, he added the suit was used for promotional purposes. He did NOT say it was THE suit....

      Delete
    3. MK Davis in his video examinations proved it's no diaper butt but the cheeks actually move. These beings are essentially people so naturally there'll be many similarities to a man walking, that's precisely why it's fooled so many noobs unknowingly into thinking they're looking at a suit when in fact it's the real thing.

      Delete
  24. Patterson was the exactly the type of guy who would perpetrate a bigfoot hoax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes he was. He continues to pull the wool over people's eyes over 40 years after his death.

      Delete
    2. Patterson was one shady motherfucker.

      Gimlin's essentially an elderly uncle telling tall tales over the cracker barrel. The guy is as legitimate as Bulletmaker LOL. Loving the attention and laughing his ass off at all of the true believers.

      Delete
    3. A TRUE SIGN OF A PERSON THAT IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH IS IF THE STORY KEEPS CHANGING, RIGHT !?!

      Bob's story has changed over & over & over again over the years - he is full of crap!

      Delete
    4. Bob may not have been the guy in the costume. Patterson may have used someone else.

      The bottom line is that Patterson pulled off a hoax that turned out better than he could have imagined.

      Delete
    5. Nope, that's a living, breathing beast. With swangin' titties.

      Delete
    6. I wish someone would prove it was fake by making a similar suit with muscular movement just like patterson was suppoed to have done back in the day . So far all the attempts have been pathetically lame.

      Delete
    7. i don't see titties swinging actually, they look a little too stable, another strike against it being real.

      Delete
    8. Before the PGF was shot, Patterson tried to make a fictional bigfoot movie in which the story included an Indian tracker guide helping a group of cowboys hunt down a sasquatch. Bob Gimlin was to play the Indian guide, complete with a long haired Indian wig as part of his costume.

      Do you really think that Patterson didn't see bigfoot as a potential money making opportunity? The fact that Patterson tried to make money with bigfoot BEFORE the October 1967 footage points to the PGF as likely being yet another attempt by Patterson to make money with bigfoot (which he did with the PGF).

      How many people have searched for a bigfoot for decades and never have a sighting? And yet Patterson and Gimlin go across two states to capture a bigfoot on film and, lo and behold, they find one and film it.

      If the PGF was shot by someone who didn't have a disreputable past and didn't already try to make money with bigfoot previously, then the credibility of the PGF would be more valid.

      As it stands, what is written above is correct. Patterson is exactly the type of guy who would create a bigfoot hoax like the PGF. And yes, his hoax continues to pull the wool over people's eyes over 45 years after the PGF was shot.

      Delete
    9. you gotta hand it to old roger, this is one of the most impressive buckets of koolade anyones ever mixed. people are slurping it down as much as they can. can't get enough!

      Delete
    10. Yes, the current bigfoot money making machine rests largely on Patterson's hoax.

      Delete
    11. Except it wasn't a hoax, you'll convince only little old spooked ladies by calling it fake everyone else sees through the ridicule.

      Delete
  25. Ya'll will see Bigfoot is real next month. What ya gona say then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah? it was next month ten years ago.

      Delete
  26. If anyone back in that era had tried to perpetrate a hoax by making a monkey suit, they wouldn't have made it female. Bigfoot was and still is referred to as a "he" most of the time.

    Some random eyewitness, "Well I first saw HIM run out from behind a couple trees, then HE turned and looked at me while HE was running across the road."

    Get what I'm saying?

    Those guys wouldn't have thought to put tits on their monkey suit. Because there was no suit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with that theory is Roger featured two encounters with female bigfoots in his book. He even accompanied those anecdotes with illustrations...

      Delete
    2. they wouldn't have made it female? why not? pro, your argument is based on the idea that you know how everybody thinks. roger could have thought "hey lets make it female that'll throw'em a curve". think like a crafty roger not like the dumb viewers who'll watch the footage.

      Delete
    3. Yup. Roger included drawings of female sasquatches with with breasts in his bigfoot book. This book was created before he shot the famous 1967 footage. He made the drawings himself.

      Delete
  27. Well I'm finally convinced. Time to move on to the "Bigfoot Hokem" blog. Sayonara Muchachos.....Happy Hunting......Har-dee, Har, Har!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Where's the "body", ie: suit?

    Anyhow, like the Minnesota Iceman and the rest, PGF is old news and just not good enough. Better evidence needs to be found.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's still the best and better evidence has proven hard to come by, for the simple fact authorities aren't playing along seemingly because they're aware of the species' true identity and against public discovery.

      Delete
  29. try telling the credible witnesses who have basically come face to face with bigfoot that its going take more proof to determine if they exist or not..

    ReplyDelete
  30. it amazes me that bob h. claims he agreed to be part of a major deceitful film ment to hoax many people for a few dollars..though now hes the holly grail of truth and credibility. .not a chance..

    ReplyDelete