Friday, November 11, 2011

The Patterson Gimlin Film Hoax PROVEN

What you think, what you know, and what you can prove are often very different scenarios as I was recently reminded by a colleague.  This is especially true concerning the Patterson Gimlin film of an alleged sasquatch/bigfoot. In the early afternoon of Friday October 20th 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin claimed to have captured film of a sasquatch and documented part of its trackway along with making plaster casts of the imprints left by the film subject.

I'm claiming that during the footage of Patterson casting a track there should be an impression visible past the one he is casting. There is not. During the footage showing 4 impressions there is now a footprint present past the one Patterson was casting previously. The ground in the footage of Patterson making the cast shows flat mud and no impression. (no following track present!) I'm also identifying the two scenes as one in the same location and impression. (the right impression being cast, is the same right footprint cast Patterson represents coming from the film subject)

It is not coincidence that Krantz documents Pattersons actions just by wild chance.

on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'

Krantz's documentation of this also places Patterson making fake tracks at Bluff Creek, and making a film of it. The case of the missing print.  How ironic is it that Patterson filmed proof of his own hoax?


The images below are large resolution scans of still frames from the actual pieces of film presented as part of the evidence of the encounter allegedly on Friday Oct 20th 1967. (although many believe it to have been filmed at an earlier date due to the type of film used and its developing procedures and availability. the format was a tightly controlled by Kodak and their processing facilities exclusively) The film was first shown Oct 22nd at Al DeAtleys house. DeAtley was Roger Patterson's brother in law. Also of note is Roger Patterson's clean shaven face in the casting footage, and then shown with a heavy beard growth in the cast display footage by a large tree. (alleged to have been shot on the same day at Bluff Creek in California - Oct 20 1967) This beard growth in such a short time seems impossible to most.







Proof the PGF is a hoax. This is not speculation, nor is it condemnation. This isn't about my opinion, or yours or any acredited scientists. The evidence is right there on the film. Patterson and Gimlin did what no one else has been able to do since.  Don't hate.  I appreciate the legend, and the story that has become famous world wide.  Instead of bashing Patterson and Gimlin - I thank them for the entertainment and for accomplishing one of the best hoaxes in our time.

River

133 comments:

  1. dumbest reason of all time !!! LOL

    BS!! FAIL !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

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

      Delete
  2. @zigoapex Prove me wrong. The evidence is quite clear and requires no speculation or trickery. I only pointed out what was captured on the film. You're free to prove otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. i'm not even going to get in to the holes in your claim,so how does that prove the patty footage fake?
    it doesn't.
    And there's nothing you can say in rebuttal that will change that fact you didn't prove the footage fake.
    I'm done here,Sayonara,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. @zigoapex It's ok - I know you can't defend your claims. This really isn't about my opinion or yours - it's about what is on the film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. So where's the paragraph where they claim they made a Sasquatch suit? Give it up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @twas_brillig: I think some proponents of the films authenticity will not accept anything against their religion. Here you have physical proof, (in the form of the casts) photographic evidence, (in the form of the film itself, and the many still photographs taken for articles and news releases of Patterson with the casts) and you have a witness statement that has nothing to do with the event (from Krantz) whom documents Patterson faking tracks at Bluff Creek, and making a film of it.

    Gimlin said to me personally he filmed Patterson making the cast. "oh yeah that was me definitely"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unbiseptium,

    I read this yesterday and wasn't going to respond because of a lack of critical thinking on your part. This morning I got an email from you for some reason with the link.

    If others got the same you could be accused of spamming like the late EB. It could be somebody else with an ax to grind which in this field wouldn't be surprising.

    However, You fail to take into account the variation of the soils of this area which being a fill at the time would not be the same composition from spot to spot. Just because you can cast one print at one spot and get a good cast doesn't mean the next one or the previous one in a line of prints will be good.

    I concur with previous posters. You have no evidence at all and your argument is useless. I suggest you take down this post and save yourself further embarrassment.

    Also, I suggest you get to the bottom of the email I received. If it was you please understand I don't appreciate it and consider it spamming. There are community newsletters you can post on to draw readers to your drivel.

    If it was not you then you need to find out who it was and complain to their isp and get them off the net. In that case your apology is accepted and the matter is closed. Anyone can be a victim and I remind all of the late EB. My best,

    ReplyDelete
  8. While I feel fairly certain that the PGF is a hoax, I think your argument has one major problem in that within the first picture you show is that not, allegedly, the left foot imprint left by Patty? If so, it makes sense, given the angle of the camera relative to the casting, that the next imprint (a right footprint) would probably be obsured by Patterson kneeling down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  9. 2all: The cast being made is a right foot cast, not a left. This should be very apparent at this point. Wake up, and stop drinking the kool-aid.

    The evidence was captured on the film. I just pointed it out. The film neither lies, nor has an opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. explain the dermal ridges on the print,paying
    a guy a 1000.00,witch is about 6700.00 today
    just to were a costume for a couple hours,
    when couldn't even by a camera and had to rent it.and why can't the guy put the suit on and fake it again,with today's tech it should be easier.
    why would he go through all that trouble to
    make a hoax.he could have went a mile from his house to do that.
    how do you explain the muscle movement in the video ? and that probably was the only print
    he could cast,you weren't there,how do you know
    it was all mud.If a hoax,why did he do everything so perfect,and leave out something
    so easy.The film is not good enough quality to
    pick out the details you are trying to claim.

    Bottom line you didn't prove anything.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Dane Rigo: You're certainly entitled to your opinion on it. I've proven my claims pretty clearly and in reality all I've done is observe something on the film and pointed it out.

    I know some people will never choose to admit this film is a hoax.

    However I would like to ask for a source of the "dermal ridges" you speak of? Do you have a reference to this? Who claimed it?

    As far as muscle movement - I don't see it. I see a baggy suit over a human.

    This graphic points out what appears to be loose suit in the middle image, and on the right image the shoulder appears to be shaped the opposite of natural ones. This might be explained by having shoulder pads underneath the fur suit pulling on the fabric.

    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/trap.jpg

    Also, in the front of the suit, this is what shoulder pads look like underneath. These:

    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/shoulderpads.jpg

    Look like this under a suit.

    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/greenarrow2.gif

    How do you explain those hipwaders err I mean legs with the weird looking knee that appears to face backwards, or to the side? :)

    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/PattyF355F356QuadMoveAG1.gif

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you see a baggy suit on a human what film are you watching?

      Delete
  12. Perhaps you mean well or perhaps this is your way to self-aggrandizement, I cannot judge. This much I can tell you, your analysis is flawed in many ways. You need to do some real unbiased research of your own and start presenting the facts instead of a subjective, agenda driven diatribe. It is not my responsibility to educate you on the subject of sasquatch. I can only tell you that you look very foolish to people and scientists that have earnestly studied the matter using genuine scientific methodology and protocol..

    You would do well to consider the implicit results of this blog, that is that you may be furthering the treatment by mainstream science to effectively ignore the very real physical evidence pointing towards the existence of a yet to be cataloged hominid whose habitat and future as a species is threatened by blogs such as this. Instead of making foolish statements about things you don’t understand you could be asking the very obvious question of academia; i.e. “why are you not examining the available evidence”

    As an explanation of why orthodox science has not studied the sasquatch issue and as noted by Michael Polanyi:

    "That the scientific community is, and must be, disciplined by an orthodoxy which can permit only a limited degree of decent, and that such decent is fraught with grave risks for the dissenter…"

    As noted by me:
    And as obviously unknown to you, and according to reputable sources you'll be hearing about very soon; researchers now have actual DNA studies which identify the sasquatch ‘s genetic code. Your blog’s days are numbered since the findings are already being prepared for publication in the scientific journals for peer review.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  13. Opalman: Perhaps you can educate me on the ways of sasquatch. I will listen, and I will take a look at whatever evidence you have to present. Just don't be surprised if I feel like its probably not very useful in any sense of discovery of a new species.

    I await your great DNA findings with baited breath. (not! lol) How many times will bigfooters fall for this "unidentified", "purported", "alleged" stuff, and actually produce something other than a lot of talk?

    To be frank, I've seen proponents of the film often say "show me the suit". How about "show me the bigfoot"?

    However, this does not mean I'm not open to such a discovery should it be brought forth. I'll wait for that though - thank you. I don't buy into the uhhhh, we have the results, but we just cant show you thing... it's all too common in this subject and you should know better also.

    Genuine scientific protocol eh? How about a genuine scientific rebuttal to my claims?

    (instead of a lot of Russell's tea pot)

    - replace religion with bigfoot in the image.

    http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k273/iammenotu/frz/religion.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  14. One of the biggest fails in the re-creation is the "stovepiping" of the hind leg (this is when the pant-like leg looks like a stovepipe). We didn't even have to use our "pants detecting technology" to see Phill's Costume is a far cry from Patty in the Patterson/Gimlin film. So, who is this Joe Nickell?

    According to Huffington Post Joe Nickell, Ph.D, is...
    "...perhaps the world’s only full-time professional paranormal investigator – with a background to match. He has spent his life collecting “personas”: carnival pitchman, stage magician (he was Resident Magician at a Houdini museum), private investigator (for a world-famous detective agency), folklorist and historian, forensic-science author, historical document consultant, and many, many others.

    In a field where people too often divide into “believers” and “debunkers” – those whose minds are made up in advance of inquiry – Nickell has gained international acclaim and respect as a successful, fair-minded investigator, choosing neither to foster mysteries nor reject them.

    Taking a hands-on approach, he has traveled around the world to investigate the strangest mysteries – often innovative strategies such as conducting an original experiment, applying a forensic science in a unique way, doing painstaking historical research, or even going undercover and in disguise. Nickell sees science as a progression of solved mysteries.

    "As far as muscle movement - I don't see it. I see a baggy suit over a human."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJqCsPccRpk

    Meldrum concludes, "The Patterson film shows flat-footed mid-tarsal breaks and bipedalism!"

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Dane Rigo: I welcome you to post rebuttals regarding my evidence. If you can prove my claims to be wrong, I would conceed. (as no one has done here yet)

    However I tend to see a problem in the bigfoot community in holding onto evidence - even after discovering its authenticity is dubious. (great example is the skookum elk lay) This film is a good example of that. People tend to try and hold onto this as some sort of tie into their beliefs. I think good science accepts the results that the evidence and facts can back up. Not speculative, or unknowns, or confirmation bias. Good science and good results are easy to defend.

    I'm in nature fairly often, and have experienced many kinds of animals. I'm not against the idea of discovering new creatures. I am however against the idea of putting fantasy and reality into the same bucket. People see all kinds of things, but it does not make them all real. (think mermaids, ghosts, or other things that were sighted often with no conclusive evidence) I don't think you would find many skeptical people that would turn away conclusive evidence. (ie a sasquatch - not just stories or "unidentified", "purported", etc etc) Are you familiar with Russel's tea pot? = bigfoot. (and i will eat my words shall anyone produce a sasquatch)

    The idea is not to base conclusions on speculation, or on anecdotal evidence alone. My claims about the film are based on physical evidence, photographic evidence, and witness testimony together. Not just one or the other. The problem with most alleged sasquatch evidence is, there is no verifiable source to it. People see footprints, yeah they had to come from something, but from what? With out identifying the source and trying to claim "sasquatch left this impression!" is a pretty bold, and unsubstantiated statement. We know there are misidentified impressions. We know there are humans that fabricate these type of impressions. (and we have evidence to PROVE those conclusions) Sasquatch? Not so much.

    What do you feel is the best evidence for sasquatch to date? Name three things.

    BTW, your claim of dermal ridges on the Patterson subject is wrong. Chilcutt should've known that he was examining a copy and not an original cast for one. Also, those "dermal rdiges" he is examining are an artifact of the casting process and not left by the original impression. (you'd think these things might be important to someone studying this - but hey, you're educating me here on sasquatch)

    Check this link out where Chilcutt describes the ridgeflow pattern and how it is oriented on the cast.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PJqCsPccRpk#t=136s

    Now check out this article by Matt Crowley, and learn why this might be important to check out.

    http://orgoneresearch.com/2010/02/03/a-response-to-chilcutt%E2%80%99s-monstertalk-interview/

    Hope this may help you understand the source of "those" dermal ridges, and that the Patterson subject did not have any present. Also I hope it helps you understand that those dermal ridges were not left in the impression. They are from the casting process.

    This concludes bigfoot101 dermal ridge class. :)

    If you want to check out a few good examples of how the suit may have been constructed, I'll be making a new post soon here that will point out how I feel the suit may be constructed, and some of the features that I feel are indicative of a suit.

    River

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  16. So let me try to understand your position.
    • Because you choose to interpret the visage portrayed by the Patterson film (Patty) as being a costume, you having never actually seen it outside the parameters of a: who knows how many generation copy of the original film produced 44 years ago with inexpensive consumer quality movie equipment, determine your visual interpretation as proof that the subject is a hoax. Wow.
    • Because you cannot see the next (left) footprint in one of the still frame due to the angle of travel (well documented and other than the green lines indicate) and shown to be hidden by the human in your exhibit B, this is somehow proof that the footprints are fake?? In the upper frame in exhibit B, the next print is a left print and obscured behind Patterson—where do you come up with the print being cast as being a left print when it is clearly a right print). You say this is “proof” and that; “This is not speculation, nor is it condemnation. This isn't about my opinion, or yours or any acredited (sic) scientists. The evidence is right there on the film.”
    This is certainly not proof! It is your visual interpretation of incomplete photographic documentation taken out of historic (timeline) context!
    • At the bottom of your exhibit B the print following the cast print is plainly visible and does not correspond to the close-up, (oblique) photo, they are two different impressions. Are you visually handicapped? Can you not discern the difference in shape of the two?
    • Regarding this wishful conclusion you make; has it not occurred to you that the many people that visited the site directly thereafter and later would have noted such a glaring inconsistency as a missing footprint(none did).
    • You take Grover Krantz’s comments totally out of context. Dr. Krantz never, ever indicated that Patterson or Gimlin faked any footprints; period. This is a blatant misrepresentation or worse an outright lie. Perhaps you should actually read his books. There is no argument that Patterson created tracks prior to the actual filming of Patty, this he reported and did as part of an effort to produce an informative documentary, and to show what sasquatch footprints looked like; nothing but a visual demonstration. He was producing the documentary before knowing that he would have an opportunity to film the creature or its tracks. i.e. no recreation of previously observed tracks needed after that happened. He explained this then and everyone understood it then. There was no effort to deceive or hoax. Dr. Krantz understood all this and never wavered from his opinion that the tracks were apparently genuine (after studying them). In Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence Krantz goes into infinite detail in scientifically documenting the Patterson film and especially the foot impressions and in no way does he suggest anything other than his hesitant conclusion that based on all available evidence the tracks are genuine. Where do you get off even offering an opinion publicly when the world’s best scientists , even after many years studying the facts, have not concluded the footprint issue a hoax of any kind. The only folks that would make such a leap are crackpots who hold themselves out to be experts. And that; in spite of having never seriously examined the evidence, visited the sight or having objectively studied the data. Your entire hypothesis is based on your analysis of poor photos taken 44 years ago at a site you have never seen or visited. Since you have no understanding of the spatial relationship of the tracks to the specific topography found at the site all those decades ago, your interpretation of the actual track impressions is at best incomplete and inaccurate. Continued in next post.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Continued from previous post:
    As I stated in my first post your arguments are seriously flawed, specious and totally unscientific. You continue to embarrass yourself—most of the learned people I know who are involved with seriously studying the topic won’t even respond to your palaver.

    This is my last post on your blog. I have provided you with enough bibliography to help you understand the subject better, I sincerely hope you will take the time to educate yourself regarding the subject, and the fallacious nature of the arguments you make.
    I have already spent way to much of my valuable time on this. I wish you well and hope you’ll take the blinders off at some point.

    Refs and Biblio:

    Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence, Dr. Grover S. Krantz, 1999 2nd Edition; Hancock House Publishers LTD;
    Chapter 4, pp 87; The Patterson Film.
    EVALUATION OF ALLEGED SASQUATCH FOOTPRINTS AND THEIR INFERRED FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY,
    Dr. JEFFREY MELDRUM, Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University.
    Bernard Heuvelmans. Various pub.,
    Meldrum, Jeff (2007). Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. Macmillan. p. 50. ISBN 9780765312174.

    Dmitri Bayonov, Igor Bourtsev, and Rene Dahinden. 1984. Analysis of the Patterson / Gimlin Film: Why we find it authentic. In the Sasquatch and other unknown Hominoids, ed by V. Markotic and Dr. Grover Krantz; pp 219-234, Pub. Calgary, Alberta Canada; Western Publishers LTD.
    Dr. Jane Goodall Speaks About Bigfoot, Ira Flatow, National Public Radio's "Science Friday," September 27, 2002

    Ray Crowe. 1996. Homo erectus; A Model for the Patterson Film Bigfoot, The Track Record, special Newsletter #9

    ReplyDelete
  18. Okay I lied…one more rebuttal, that’s it! LOL.
    I have objectively reviewed the citations you include in your assumptive speculation referring Matt Crowley’s supposition regarding the CA 19 and CA20 casts. It is old news and total BS. For those unfamiliar I offer the following comment. The fact that desiccation ridges can appear similarly to what others have described as dermal ridges fails to prove that the appearance of these ridges on the casts is by itself, proof of either; dermatological or desiccation (rapid dehydration) ridges—just as the appearance of wood chips and downed trees next to a beaver pond (Crowley’s allegory) neither proves that beavers or, perhaps, a kid with a machete were the cause of the chips. In the case of the example provided Beavers are but one possible explanation for the downed trees and wood chips. Totally not even considered; both could be true. But more obviously Crowley has not seen the ridges I’ve looked at, that much is certain.

    Importantly: Crowley fails to provide an explanation for the dermal ridge pores 1 , (eccrine sweat pores on the crests of ridges). The argument for the pores being indicative of oxidization bubbles caused by the hydrating process of wet plaster are inconsistent with the apparent location of these pores which closely replicates the human dermal model. That tired argument is passé.

    In the citation preceding the one referenced directly above; I can only offer the following food for thought: In the YouTube video we have a thoughtful, organized logical dissertation that explains why it is impossible to hoax a genuine sasquatch foot impression, The entire dissertation is eloquently backed by scientific logic—yet Crowley; in contrast offers an exercise in ridiculous and illogic reasoning; “when you find a cut tree near a body of water then that proves a beaver did it” My how scholarly! Come on dude—get real.

    1 Sasquatch; Legend Meets Science, Dr. Jeff Meldrum, A Tom Doherty Associates Books;, New York, New York, Chapter 14; …Drematoglyphics.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Opalman: "yes uhm, we are asserting that this unseen before dermal ridge pattern is attributed to an unknown animals foot that has never been seen before, and we're doing it with certainty"

    lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  20. @Opalman: You sure said a lot without saying very much of anything of value here. As for specifics regarding my claims - I find it amusing that it is you asking me if I'm visually impaired in some fashion when I am the one that discovered this mistake Patterson made when many professionals who studied the film before myself had not.

    (and also you obviously don't notice it even when pointed out or you like to pretend so)

    Patterson is not blocking the view of the next track. It is not made yet in the casting footage. Those scenes are the same - you might have a hard time recognizing it due to the perspective change, and the fact that Patterson removed a few of the features surrounding that particular track. (they "cleaned up" the area - most likely to hide their own tracks and signs) For instance the "stick" that is in front of the track Patterson is casting - it is removed from the scene in the footage of the 4 imprints. Also, some of the debris to the left of the track he's casting is also removed as is the non fixed object that is casting the shadow.

    The scene is identified as one in the same due to the unique features in the "dirt dam" or piled up dirt immediately surrounding the imprint he's casting. This is compared to the surrounding dirt dam/piled up dirt of the dried cast in the same fashion and unique features on both are a perfect match. Also, the "rock" (which may be a dirt clod) that sticks up to a point in sort of a triangular fashion to the right of Patterson in the casting footage is still present.

    Perhaps mentioning those things will help your detective eye some.

    (now maybe you understand why it was not easy for "anyone" to notice)

    As for dermal ridges and footprints - you can keep your opinion about it but trying to pass it off as some sort of fact or validated finding is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. You claim "dermal ridges" when its a casting artifact and on top of it you want to claim its sasquatch that left the print.

    Well, here is a wake up call... You need to verify the source of the imprint and examine its feet before you can start claiming those are features of a sasquatch foot. Much less, try to claim that Crowley is BS or that your theories based entirely on speculation are some how more relevant to this discussion.

    That said - I do appreciate your comments and your interest in the subject. I think you've done well at "holding up the flag" for the believers side. However, that flag is pretty empty in reality.

    I'd like to ask you what specific alleged sasquatch evidence do you feel is the very best out there to date? Name three specific things. (ie: not just "footprints", or "sightings" but which specific one, lets talk specific evidence claims)


    BTW, I did not take Krantz out of context, nor did I misquote. He inadvertently documents Pattersons actions, and for some reasons unknown to us decided it was noteworthy enough to put into publication in his book.

    Not only does Krantz document Pattersons actions, but also the timing of it puts him at Bluff creek, making fake tracks, and making a film of it. Sound like any film you may have seen? (cough cough - look above)

    ReplyDelete
  21. now your saying krantz is a part of the whole patterson film so called hoax ? LOL!!
    dude, your shot !
    next your going to say the fbi and the cia were in on it.
    give it up, not even the skeptics agree with you.
    I will say it again,BS !! This is the worst evidence
    of this being a hoax in the world,It does not make any since what so ever.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @zigoapex: Krantz had nothing to do with the Patterson hoax. He simply documented Pattersons actions in his book.

    Also, you may want to learn when it makes sense to use that word since you're trying to make fun of someones writings. The evidence is excellent. It requires no speculations, or postulations.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry unbiseptium, just read this, but i agree with the others here and believe that your "evidence" is nothing more then a pile of weak theories, or rather, just your imagination..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi stone. My opinion is that believers will never accept any evidence of this representing a hoax unless Gimlin makes some type of confession, and even still some might doubt it. One of the interesting things I've observed is people like you posting here saying that the evidence isnt there, or that I've proven nothing yet they cannot point out any mistakes in the evidence or any claims I've made specifically that were not true. "It just cant be" wont suffice I'm afraid.

      The evidence I've posted is excellent and since the time I originally posted this I've made a much better presentation that will be eventually posted here. May I ask where you felt my post was in error? Thanks.

      Delete
    2. its been two years were is it?

      Delete
  24. Sorry,I didn't know that you are unable to comprehend phrases used in a slang form that people, movies, musicians use everyday.
    "Your Shot" means that you are delusional,unable to rationalize logically, and from reading the replies, most agree with me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. zigoapex: I comprehend things just fine. I'm sorry that I don't buy your bigfoot religion, or that the other proponents that posted here do not agree with the facts. My blog and findings will not change delusional thoughts, or cult like behavior from "footers".

      There's a difference between slang and the proper use of since and sense. "Since" you have "sense" enough to figure that one out, I hope you have figured out that your insults will not change the fact the Patterson film represents nothing more than a hoax. You may continue to "believe" or even try and fool others into your delusions. Please do not mistake me for one of those "followers".

      I'll stick with the truth... Thanks.

      Delete
  25. From a purely scientific point of view, you haven't proven anything. I realize people usually believe what they want to believe and it often takes a lot of time to modify one's perspective. but if that is a man in a suit, they already had to know everything about the animal's characteristics and movements and then incorporate it into the costume and in the training of the man walking in the suit. The only way to get close to proving that it is a suit is to find the suit, have the appropriate sized man walk in the suit and film it. otherwise people will always see what they want to see. Bob Herionimous still says he has the suit. Why not have him put it on a walk in it? My guess is that we won't because he's not telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Purely from a scientific view. I've proven the footprints were faked. I've also proven the casts made are fake. Patterson claimed those prints and casts came from imprints left by the subject of the film. We now know that is not true. There have been "scientific" papers written on the footprints. That paper is now invalid.

      As for your suit dreams, good luck.

      Delete
    2. ubiseptium, I appreciate your attempt to shed light on the certainty of the pg film, I think we'd all like to know for sure, unfortunately, the only definitive proof for it to be a hoax would be if gimlin said it was a hoax, or if bob H. put the suit on with the shoulder pads, and then walk at a distance with it. then you could compare the two films. or to prove it was in fact real would be to find Patty. (naturally i'm not arguing the existence of bigfoot at this point just whether or not this film is a hoax). I appreciate your analysis of the prints but to be honest i do see four prints in your picture above. and also the pictures showing the footprints with the casts next to them doesn't reveal anything. the toes would naturally be on the bottom so you wouldn't see them. Finally, i don't know if you've ever noticed this but when you take a picture at close range with just about any camera, the picture will often appear distorted. in other words it may narrow or widen the picture. (i usually take pictures of fish i've caught) so you can't really demonstrate that as definitive proof but perhaps you have shed some doubt.
      My question with Bob H. credibility is that he is first of all reported as saying something to the effect of "i'm not going to allow this opportunity to pass by without making a profit." Secondly, why didn't he put the suit on and walk with it after he said he was the creature. anyone can hold a hairy suit in their hands and claim if they put it on it will look just like patty. thirdly, he said he was wearing shoulder pads under the suit. any pic of patty shows some kind of material that reveals muscle, fat and ligaments. why did he not explain that or what the material was? Patty's structure reveals much more muscle and fat underneath the suit than bob has, he's tall and lanky, Patty's muscular. not saying he didn't wear anything underneath, but why hasn't he said anything about it? if you look at other pics of men in a monkey/bigfoot suit they always sag where they are not met by material or the person. Patty doesn't do that at all. Finally, if you look at other reported pics of bigfoot (here are a few; http://listverse.com/2011/05/23/top-20-bigfoot-sightings) they all have a unique walk and body movement. Bob H. couldn't have known any of that in 67 because there wasn't enough video's available to observe it, yet patty walks and moves exactly the way other video's of bigfoot walk. Perhaps it could be a hoax, but I sincerely doubt it was Bob H. in that suit.

      Delete
    3. muskyhunter: I have proven my claims. If you'd care to point out any errors, I'm all ears. Frankly, your diatribe against reality is amusing. If you would like to perpetuate the bigfoot club, go ahead. Just don't expect most people to buy it. For some reason you seem stuck on Bob Heironimus. This article does not mention him. Perhaps you should contact him and square away your beefs with him.

      Delete
  26. Unbiseptium, I'm really trying hard to understand your point of view, I've been staring at your pictures to try to understand your perspective, but i honestly can't see how that picture proves anything? (by the way you don't mean prove beyond a reasonable doubt right?) it's an old picture and not real clear.
    secondly, and i think this might actually be the problem, if you look at figure "b", the bottom section the sun appears to be at about 12:00 (from the way the picture is on the screen, not time of day) so the shadows are coming from the side of each footprint. the top picture of figure b has the sun at about 6:30(with respect to the way the picture is on the screen). thus the shadows are at a different angle of about 90 degrees. that would mean that in the top picture the shadow would be coming from the heel. since the picture is taken from the heel perspective and is at a lower angle, it's not going to be visible, kind of like standing facing an object with the sun at your back, you're not going to see it's shadow. and also since the picture is taken when the sun is at a higher point in the sky the shadow that highlights the footprint isn't going to be as visible. remember the only shadow at that time of the day is going to be on the heel.
    by the way, although i won't lose any sleep if bigfoot doesn't exist, the existence of bigfoot doesn't hinge on whether or not this film is of a real bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Unbiseptium,
    Hey I FOUND THE PRINT and I think I understand why it isn’t all that visible. I noticed that in figure b the top picture doesn’t give as much detail as the lower picture. Partly I suspect because the sun was at a lower angle in the bottom picture, thus creating more shadows, but predominantly because the lower picture was taken by having the camera focus almost directly over each print. If you notice the top section of figure b shows more detail of the area around the print and around Rodger, as you go farther back from where Rodger is kneeling many of those same objects kind of become blended into a dull brown hue. Obviously because the camera isn’t focusing on the background (sort of like if you take a picture of a tree, the leaves in the front will be in focus while the leaves in the background become kind of foggy, or blurry). Now a footprint is really just a circular indentation in the sand, and thus all you would see is the ridge created by the indentation, and perhaps a shadow. So if many of those same objects that are in the bottom picture of figure b aren’t visible in the background of the top part of the picture, then why would that ridge by visible? (remembering of course that the shadow isn’t visible because the sun is at a higher angle)
    Nevertheless, if you follow left green line you drew for scale, to the right side of the end of the line you can see the ridge of the foot print, you can even see a ridge that was made by the area between the toes and the ball of the foot. The ridge just appears lighter in color then the surrounding area. You’ll even notice that the line kind of fades a little behind the ball of the foot. If you compare it with the print on the bottom picture the indentation isn’t very deep on that part which would explain why the ridge isn’t as visible. Furthermore, if you notice the lines you drew for scale you’ll notice that you used the white plaster that had fallen into to toes of the print to match your lines up. To the right of the toes (towards the bottom of the picture) you’ll notice that there is another small pile of white plaster. Naturally, Rodger had spilled more plaster between the two picture frames. You made your center green line line up with the plaster in the toes but if the print had not been there yet because Rodger hadn’t supposedly made the print yet, than why would the plaster be there? if you match your line up with the other pile of white plaster the print matches up perfectly. Thanks for the discussion it was an interesting theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. muskyhunter: There are no prints visible in the casting scene. I have large resolution scans that are much larger than the images posted here. Even Bill Munns says there are not prints visible in the casting scene.

      To the point: The footprints were faked. This article points it out very well.

      Delete
  29. Unbiseptium,
    I clicked on your picture and then blew it up. if you follow the yellow line to the left and look just to the right of that line there's an outline of a footprint with another line going across right behind the toes. i would imagine that a blurry picture of a footprint would only highlight the outline of the footprint as this picture has done. the picture does not show other debris that are evident in the picture below thus the footprint is also blurred.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Unbiseptium,
    hey I took another look at that outline for a print. i have to concede, that can't possibly be the print, it's too far away from the former print and it's too far to the left. to be honest i don't really know what to think of the pg film. there's heck of a lot of smoke, and where there's smoke there's usually fire, but i also can't seem to figure out how a rancher could make a suit like that? the creature seems to convey it's real. i'm not sure anyone will ever really know?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Unbiseptium,
    After I sent you that post conceding that what I thought was the print wasn’t the print, I took a another look and realized that as some have said up above, the reason you can’t see the print is because it is the left foot and final print. I think I can give a significant amount of evidence to substantiate this.
    Before I get into the details I’ll just summarize.
    1. The four pictures of the bottom are matched up incorrectly. The two prints on the left are one and the same print. The bottom one is just elongated because of the angle of the camera. If you look at the details of the two left prints they are exact. The prints are of the right foot, second print back. The print on the top right is the left foot and the last print patty made that is supposedly missing from the picture. The print is much wider and the details around the print do not match the print on the left.
    2. The three rocks used for “common features” are not in the same place. The apparent rocks near rodger as he is casting the print are about 8 to 10 inches further away from patty’s print, thus they cannot be used as a “common feature.”(by using patty’s print for scale the distance can be determined)
    3. In the lines that supposedly match the “common pathways” there is not one common feature yet there are some debris left in each picture.
    4. The mud pile/stick directly in front of the print bob is standing over which according to the theory is the right foot, second one back left absolutely no trace in in the picture (at the bottom of “b”)(which is supposed to be both prints after they are finished) what appears to be soil that has not been touched or effected since the last rain or heavy wind.

    ReplyDelete
  32. More Detailed description
    I’ll start with the prints themselves.
    1.if you start with the top prints you’ve matched together (4th picture down). on the top two prints it does appear that marks 6 and 7 are similar, but what is apparent is that the print on the right is much wider than the print on the left. One might make the case that it appears to be wider because the camera is at a different angle but nothing in the picture appears to be out of proportion so why would the print be out of proportion? In other words, the dimensions of the print on the right is out of proportion to the print on the left. If you follow the edges of the prints, they really don’t match up at all other than they are in the genuine shape of a footprint. But what is striking is that the print on the left appears to have a trench on the lower right hand corner of the print. There is no trench present on the picture on the right. It might appear that you can’t see it because there’s not enough of a picture to show it, but all you have to do is look up above at picture “b” on the top section to see that there isn’t a trench present. Finally you’ll see that there’s much more dirt piled up around the heel of the picture on the right than there is on the left.
    2. With respect to the prints matched up on the bottom, you’ve noted that there appears to be dirt which obscures the right edge of the print, thus you have to match up the left side as well as the straight edges you’ve marked with a blue line. Let’s start with blue line drawn at the top near the “1”. the blue line on the print on the right ends right at about the highest part of the print, near the second toe. After the toe it begins to descend down the other side of the footprint. But if you look on the print on the left side it doesn’t begin to descend at the second toe in but rather it continues to ascend, naturally implying that the print doesn’t match. Without getting into every detail what you’ll notice is that the two prints on the left side are the exact same print, it’s just that the print on the lower left has a more elongated view because of the angle of the camera. You’ll even notice the “stream” that goes into the trench on the lower right hand corner. The prints on the left are the exact same print of the right foot, the print on the top right is of the left foot and the last print of the four steps and it does not have a matching print in these four pictures.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Now with respect to the arrows that show common features.
    1. On the top picture of picture “b” you have the three rocks right to the of rodger’s foot. We’ll use patty’s footprint for scale. Patty’s footprint was approximately 14.5 inches. If you were to take patty’s footprint out of the ground and put the heel against the heel on the ground and aim it towards the three “rocks” her foot print would go to just beyond rodger’s foot. Thus it would be about 5” short of reaching the rocks.
    In the bottom picture of picture “b” if you did the same thing, took the print out of the ground and aimed the toes towards the rocks the rocks would be right about under the ball of her foot. Thus the rocks in the bottom picture are about eight inches closer to the heel then the rocks at the top of the screen. This is most likely because they are not the same rock pile.

    2. The lines project path, but in reality there isn’t one object shown on the top screen that is visible on the bottom screen. The stick that’s up to the left would fall right at about the side of the foot. Naturally Rodger could have moved it but it still shows there isn’t one similar object. There is a small white object on the bottom screen on the left yellow line, but if you look at the third picture down it shows that small white object to simply be a piece of plaster.

    3. Finally, if you look at the top picture of bob standing over the print you can see the piece of mud sticking up or something to that effect. On the right side of the mud there appears a ridge of dirt or mud that curves off to the side. It actually looks like a human print. Anyway, the mud in front of the print has been stepped on or reformed. If you look at the third picture down it shows a very clear picture of the dirt between the two prints. (We’re assuming since this is the second print back and bob has not supposedly made the other print that the mud pile and or stick was previously there) The ground shows in great detail that it hasn’t been touched with anything, almost the way dirt looks if it has only been hit with rain or wind. Furthermore it has plaster all through it. now since this shows both prints we’re led to believe he fixed up the ground before he dug his last print. Whatever formed that mud pile or stick with some kind of mud on it would leave some kind of a trace. Yet nothing is there.
    Thanks so much for the interesting discussion, remember that if it turned out patty was real, or she was in fact fake you would still have to get up to go to work tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Unbiseptium,by the way, i accidentally called rodger bob a couple of times, that was obviously just a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, There are no following prints present, and there should be. Period. Your excuses don't change that.

      As for work tomorrow! What about today? haha, so busy lately man. I'm in the middle of writing/recording/producing two albums. (hence my slackness posting here)

      Anyhow, it doesnt matter who likes or dislikes the findings posted here. They are accurate, and duplicable.

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't expect you to take me on just my word on anything. So, here is a short video from the studio last week of Morgan Rose from Sevendust putting some of his magic on one of my songs.

      http://s1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/?action=view&current=Untitled.mp4

      Delete
  35. Unbiseptium,
    that guy’s got a heck of a resume. Is your band then eye empire? He kind of sounded like Metallica or even perhaps iron maiden (yes I am old). Yet my all time favorite band is still Zeppelin, not that I sit around and only listen to them , but when I think of an overall band with a variety of different music I think they’re pretty hard to compete with, that is before Bonham died. When is your album supposed to be released?
    By the way, you mentioned about there being no following print? If the print Rodger is casting at the top of b corresponds to the print all the way over to the right, the one not yet cast in that picture. (bottom section of b) then that is the last print made because after that the next step would be out of the creek bed. The reason why the prints were good there was because it was a dried up creek bed. (aka. Bluff creek) kind of like a horse, (if in fact Patty is a sasq) it doesn’t make footprints on dry ground just soft or muddy ground. Even though I’m old I’ll still download your album, I still like to listen to Maiden and Metallica once in a while.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. btw, its hard to tell but that clip is from the end of a song. it sort of builds up to that part. Here is a slightly longer clip I stuck on youtube. All you can hear is the click and scratch guitar haha.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=4zqJ8a8G6o4

      Delete
  36. Love all those bands you mentioned. I'm not in eye empire, but those guys are a great new metal band. One of the best newer ones to come out in a while. I'm doing two recording projects and one is a band thing and the other is a solo project. The stuff I did with Morgan is for my solo project, but I may have him do some tracks for my band thing also. (already talked to him about it) I'm honored to have him play on my tracks. Hes a good dude.

    Definitely the best rock drummer I've ever recorded with. I worked him pretty hard, but he was awesome and pulled off some great tracks for me. Was awesome to catch up on things (hadnt hung out with him in a long time)

    https://twitter.com/morgan7d/status/208379654636175360

    ^ 6 tracks in 6 hours = pro
    Can't say enough good things about the guy. Just an all around cool person, and does a lot of good things for people too. I'd love to hook you up with the album once its complete. Will probably be around the end of the year or jan before it'll get released. I should be done recording those tracks in about a month tho. The other band project I'm heading to Florida in about a week to write/record with them for a couple weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. muskyhunter: Not sure I'm following you. Did you want to ask a question? I see two deleted posts before this one, and it says "This comment has been removed by the author." meaning you deleted them. I've never deleted your comment.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. muskyhunter: The album doesnt have a release date as of yet because I'm still putting tracks on it. I've got a couple names in mind, but havent decided yet. When I do I'll put up a website and such. If you'd like I can reply here to give you notice. I appreciate the support!

      As to the findings posted here: They are true and accurate. There are no false findings posted. In the footage of Roger casting the impression, there should be following prints visible. In the footage showing the trackway, there are prints visible where they were not before. They were created after the casting scene was shot.

      The impressions that were cast were not from the film subject. They were faked, and Patterson filmed proof of that. It really is that simple.

      Delete
  41. btw,
    i'm not convinced patty's real, i think she is but when i look at the recreations of patty, it takes about 1/2 second to determine they're fake. i've looked at patty stabalized all the way through and can't seem to see anything but a real animal. i'm not one who believes it's definitely real and will not listen to others opinions, which is perhaps why i came to your site, googled, "pg hoax". probably never know but either way i still have to get up to go to work tomorrow (in other words, it's really isn't that important)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Unbiseptium,
    i got ya...
    c.s.lewis was an athiest, he set out to prove God did not exist, he was all but convinced except for one thing, he couldn't understand why when he did the right, followed his conscience he felt good, when he did the wrong or evil he felt bad, why? if it was all evolution and survival of the fittest those emotions would make no sense. that started to make him take a second look because he simply couldn't find a reasonable explanation (paraphrasing) , what if there was a God? the rest was pretty much history.
    again, not that i care that much what patty is, i was looking at the evidence and was all about convinced this was a hoax, but looking at patty and the recreations made me take a second look. Bob H. has far too many inconsistencies to really know what part if any he had to play, some other guy critically looked at the film and seemed to have some compelling evidence, but after looking at patty and the other suits again i went back and realized his evidence was a little like a dan brown book(take things from history or pictures and fill in with one's imagination) so i really was looking for something concrete. when you look at it in a stabilized version you can see the quadriceps, calf muscle, it almost seems like you can see the hamstring, although that could be my imagination, buttocks moves independently, traps, deltoids, lats all in perfect form. mouth opens and closes when she turns her head (incidentally how could bob h open and close that mouth if he had a helmet on?) and her eye to elbow ratio cannot be faked at least by bob, it would have to be someone else, maybe it was? i do realize it's possible that the hip waiters could have moved to make it appear that they are muscles, but i've warn hip waiters before and they never move like that, they don't bulge out at the top, the sag at the bottom. and finally the hair? morris says it was a gorilla suit, but patty has different lengthed hair in different places that looks nothing like morris' suit. in one of bob's comments he said it was a horse skin, but horse hair is uniform and i've never seen horse hair that long or in different lengths in different places. i suppose it's possible a rancher could have created that suit, that but then anything is possible. i tend to think they only certainty is that no one will ever know except for gimlin and perhaps bob if by chance he is telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. your very correct it so obvious that is not bob h. in phillip Morris 's monkey suit..it makes you wonder what people are looking at..if someone can look at bob h. in his suit and believe its looks like patty .There in complete denial. ..the real truth is that the pgf is authentic. .and bob h..is a cronic liar that is knee deep in his own lies.

      Delete
  43. Unbiseptium,
    hey i've been a little out of the loop with newer metal, but that guy seems like he was made to be a drummer. i never paid too much attention to how important a drummer is until i saw Rush in concert. Niel Pert did like a 5 minute solo. it made me realize the drummer's kind of the glue that keeps everything together. which i guess would explain why Zepplin fell apart after Bonham died. with a drummer like that (Rose) i'm sure your band's going somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The footprints aren't a good source of info for trying to debunk the film. The film is separate from those casts made. If I was to debunk the PGF in an honest fashion I would use the actual film as my main source of information, not the background stories and all that. Who knows what they were up to at the time. My personal opinion on the film itself is that it's not a man in some suit. It's a real biological entity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The footage of the footprints and casting are from the actual film. Maybe you should ask Jeff Meldrum how important the footprints are to the film and its authenticity. After all, he published a paper on them.

      Delete
  45. I don't know if this was a hoax or not but I truly believe in numerology and you posted this blog on November 11 , 2011 at 1111 now that was either a pure fluke or done on purpose. I guess you could apply the same rule here with the PGF...Patterson was shady character but maybe they just got lucky!! 1111 is a very special combo , so something paranormal here anyways !

    ReplyDelete
  46. I've seen enough of the film to see it is clearly a hoax, and have read enough about the key players to further satisfy me that PGF is a hoax. Rather than "proof" that PGF is a hoax, I think your analysis is just more evidence that PGF is a hoax. When we weigh all the evidence for and against, the PGF just doesn't stand up to all the weight against it. In addition to all the evidence against PGF that is readily available (I don't need to enumerate all of it here) I also observe bad acting skills on the part of the bigfoot players, themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many "proofs" of this hoax.

      The beard growth on Patterson between the casting scene and the cast display scene by the large tree. (allegedly shot at bluff creek on Oct 20th after their encounter)

      The impossible film developing timeline. That specific film required processing by a very specialized machine that cost around a million dollars back then. The process was also patented by kodak. The only labs doing those processes were not open over the weekends. (closed Saturday and Sunday) The closest one to Patterson or the event was a plant in Palo Alto California. The film was likely made at a previous date, and mailed to the processing plant and back. There were no locations in Wa state doing that processing in 1967.

      Then you have to deal with Bob Heironimus and his claims, along with witnesses to those claims. His horse was there at Bluff Creek on film. He was a friend of both Patterson and Gimlin. Gimlin to date will not do an interview with Heironimus present. Heironimus is fine with doing an interview with Gimlin present. Very telling.

      Then you have to deal with the flaws in the suit... et all.

      There are many "proofs" mostly being that there is no bigfoot creature to begin with, in order to be filmed. Certainly the footprints on this film were faked, and its easily proven. Unfortunately there are many that still hold onto this as some sort of cult like phenom.

      Delete
  47. Wow!!! Too much technical jargon here. I agree with you. Lets just set science aside for a moment. Dumb it down if you will. It seems as though so much effort is being focused on the small details that the large ones are being overlooked. This must be the hippie bigfoot just out for casual stroll. Its hard to imagine an entire species developed over time the uncanny ability to completely elude all attempts at discovery from humans in all walks of life, from trackers to hunters and scientists. Why doesn't this one show any signs of stress at the fact that the one thing they have been so intent on avoiding (humans) just popped up with unknown intent. You would think it would appear startled or hell bent on getting away. Yet it just strolls off without a care in the world. If it is to survive in the wild certain things must be understood. It would need to develop skills to ensure its survival such as possibly a heightened sense of smell, or hearing to avoid possible conflict as it seems all other things living in the wilderness tend to develop including humans. So why did it not hear the sound of the horses in the dirt or the guys speaking to one another or smell either the guys or horses and vacate the area. I would assume that it is fairly mature by its size and would be well versed at eluding such dangers as humans. Yet there it is right out in the open. ld think that a full grown grizzly bear could do some major damage to a bigfoot or its child so learning to avoid such incidents would be important to survival of the species. I firmly believe that it is quite possible for these to exist. I just don't think that this was one on the film. I am slightly confused as to how people are seeing muscle movement in this film. I see no such detail. In highschool about a decade ago I did a report on this footage and asked a friends father who was a movie editor for help and was informed that due to the age of the film only so much information could be pulled as it only recorded what it could for the time. You could imagine my let down as I had this thought in my head of all the shows I watched and how they were always able to zoom in and get great detail from pictures and security footage in shows like csi. All I ended up with was some old shaky footage showing no real detail as the camera used was unable to pick up such things I was looking for. And what about Bob? Have you seen his walk pretty incredibly similar don't you think? What about the arm length? I've. Been told when it turns it turns its chest as well unlike a human. I agree. It is unlike a human but not unlike a human in a suit that they are forced to do so due to size and bulk similar to the guy on the corner in the monkey suit trying to get me to have my car washed. K did this for halloween one year and couldn't turn just my neck either. I'm sorry but nothing in the footage shows any animal moving or acting in any natural ways other than a dude in a suit WALKING away. Again I'm not saying it doesn't exist just that the Patterson footage is Bob H. In a suit!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I'm using the same scans that Bill Munns used. I got them from him. Your misconception is, that this film represents anything but a guy in a fur suit. The film is 100% hoax and easily proven. I guess you are one of those cherry pickers. Explain where and how the film was developed? Kodak had a patented processing for kodachrome film, it was under law restricted and copyrighted for only use by the Kodak company. There was only one place that film could have been developed and that is at a kodak processing facility. All of which are closed on weekends in 1967. The closest one available would have been Palo Alto California.

      How did Patterson shoot his film on Friday and display it on Sunday? Where did he get it devloped? (you probably lack this knowledge, seeing as you like to spew garbage publicly about the film without really knowing) Patterson would never tell where he got the film developed. Ever wonder why?

      There are many proofs of this hoax. Only hardcore bigfoot believers choose to ignore these, and idolize the silly looking film.

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

      Delete
  48. I respectfully disagree with your claim to have found "proof" of a hoax. The castings from the Patterson footage and trackway footage could be from two different footprints. The trackway cast is obviously from a right foot, but the Patterson cast looks like it comes from a left foot. As others have pointed out, maybe the Patterson cast is from the left and final footprint. That would explain you can’t see another footprint. Bill Munns points out other discrepencies here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMCQSnc71Q

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Two more thoughts:

    1) When it comes to alleged inconsistencies with timelines and locations, people should be skeptical about the skeptics. Witnesses often misspeak or embellish when recalling the details of controversial events. Patterson and Gimlin were not professional spinsters. If they knew that hundreds of sleuths would be dissecting their every word and action over the next five decades, perhaps they would’ve spoken with more clarity and documented their movements more thoroughly. Furthermore, reporters misquote people all the time; they often have agendas and biases that influence their perception of events. Just because Greg Long says Patterson was a scumbag, that doesn't mean Patty was a man in a suit.

    The march of time magnifies these problems: memories fade, witnesses die, and a new generation of investigators must rely on secondary sources and third-hand accounts. Data gets mangled like it would in a game of telephone. As the legend grows, new “witnesses” with dubious motives come out of the woodwork. *cough* Heironimus *cough*

    The JFK assassination is a perfect example. Both conspiracy theorists and skeptics can point to thousands of pages of documented evidence to support their version of events. For on objective person trying to form an opinion, it’s damn-near impossible to separate the “facts” from the errors, nonsense, and misinformation—especially on the Internet. Every year a new book comes out claiming to solve the mystery “once and for all”—but they never do.

    2) You can’t discredit PG by claiming YOU would act differently in their situation. YOU would’ve shot Patty. YOU would release all the footage. YOU would do a sit-down interview with Heironimus. You don’t know what you’d do if you filmed a Bigfoot, and you don’t know why PG did what they did. Maybe they were scared. Maybe they lost or destroyed the rest of the footage. Maybe Gimlin hates Heironimus and doesn’t want to dignify his allegations by associating with him.

    If these actions don’t make sense to you, well, human behavior often doesn’t make sense. When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was identified as a suspect in the Boston bombing, three of his friends confiscated his laptop and backpack before the cops could get to it. Does this mean they were part of the bombing conspiracy? No. It just means they’re idiots. Human beings are not always rational. In the middle of high-pressure, high-stakes situation, reason can goes out the window. Gimlin says today he wishes he would’ve shot Patty. Hindsight is 20/20.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blah blah blah, no monkey blah. Proponents talk a lot of bullshit. The only "patty" to have been shot was with film, and it was a friend of theirs in a fur suit.

      If you still believe in the year 2013 there is a bigfoot to be filmed anywhere, I would ask of you to please speak with a psychiatrist about it. Gimlin is very careful about what he says. He will say things like "There was only Roger and I there THAT DAY" referring to the 20th of oct, when the film was most likely shot well before that. So he told the truth, on that day (the 20th) he and Roger were the only ones there.

      Gimlin refuses to do any interviews with Heironimus present. Heironimus is game, and would gladly. Why do you think this is? How come this page hasn't been removed and me sued for libel? I accused them of a hoax. I said I had proof. The PGF is big dollars right, the only legitimate film of a sasquatch (according to bleevers)

      So why haven't I been sued by Pat Patterson or by Gimlin? I'd gladly go to court to prove this film a hoax. It's quite simple, in the real world at least.

      The "left foot right foot" issue is easily solved. Ask Jeff Meldrum. He's a footer authority right? Ask him which footprint is being cast in that footage. Don't take my word for it. BTW, the other cast came from the previous impression (the 2/4, which is a left, again ask Jeff Meldrum)

      Delete
    2. Why hasn't Heironimus been sued for libel? Clearly hes been on several television shows telling his story about being in the suit.

      The answers should clue you in.

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

      Delete
    4. Why do you keep drinking the bigfoot koolaid? Bob Heironimus has never been sued or made to change his statements publicly. Gimlin refuses to be interviewed with Heironimus present. Heironimus would love to do that interview. Why do you think Gimlin refuses?

      Why do you think Heironimus was never sued for libel? How come I havent been? Here I'll say it again publicly. This film is a hoax! I would welcome any law suit that challenges me on that. Bring it on, lets settle it in court. I think we know who would win. There is no such thing as bigfoot. Only a bunch of losers wishing there was.

      Delete
    5. Mr River is ready for court and ready to settle...He welcomes any law suit that challenges his opinion. He will with all confidence stand up in court and bodly go were no man has gone before and say judge BigFoot is a hoax...Mr Rivers my hats off to you sir .You just may earn yourself a place in history as the first person to sue Bigfoot...for non exsistance. ..who knows maybe someday you can get Santa Clause.in court and you can prove to the jury he's a phony by pulling off his beard..Mr Rivers sir this could be huge for you just think you busting myths and legends and exposing them for the freuds that they are.I would love to see BobH. on the witness stand in his bigfoot suit..and you standing tall in your wingtip shoes...A proud moment for all i'm sure.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice try. Patterson claimed those footprints he cast were from the film subject. Meldrum based a paper off of those footprints. They are fake, and its been proven. The bigfooters like to ignore this, just like you try to ignore how it is tied to the events and to the film claimed to have been shot oct 20th 1967. Ask the high priest of bigfooting Meldrum how important the footprints are, and casts are. Ask him if they are tied together. Don't just cherry pick your specific argument for me alone. Some of the PhD types interested in the Patterson film (like Meldrum) would argue that the footprints and associated evidence that was collected and presented as being a part of that days events are quite important to the scheme of things. Also, quite important to the films authenticity.

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

      Delete
    3. Do you mean this guy in a suit?

      http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/hipwadersfold.gif

      http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/trap.jpg

      http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/greenarrow2-1.gif

      Delete
    4. The sideways knee is my favorite part of the "bigfoot".

      Delete
    5. its funny though it does make sense that the same people that waste their time on something that they dont believe in are also the same people that have the least intelligent comments

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

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

      Delete
    8. No, its the refusal of a bigfoot proponent to realize their savior is a merely a dude in a suit. I doubt you bothered to look at the images. They have been explained many times by man people. If you'd like to believe that Bob H in a suit was a bigfoot, have fun with it. Just don't expect most reasonable people to play along with your bigfoot game. This story blew out long ago, right after Patterson came out with it then toured the country with the film and a fake Gimlin impersonator.

      You should perhaps study the film, and the circumstances that surround it before you blindly make statements about how something has never been explained. (ad nauseum, these points have been)

      Here is a great explaination, its a guy in a suit. There is no such thing as bigfoot. It is a myth, much like leprechauns and faeries, mermaids etc.

      Do you really believe a 8 foot tall 1200 pound ape like beast is roaming around North America undiscovered? If so, that probably explains a lot...

      The truth is not acceptable for you. So sorry for that, I hope you come around one day after many disappointments, and some education.

      Delete
    9. you keep dancing around my question to explain the image in the film. your babbling ..about a court room ..hey forget about the bigfoot law suit your talking about..go for the gold why dont you just take the Pope to court and prove there's no God..hey just think how famous you would be...

      Delete
    10. Alright cool, you refuse to look at the images. Keep on I've exlained the images and so have many others. Educate yourself on the film, and on bigfoot as a phenomenon. If you have a whee bit of critical thinking skills you may come to your own conclusions.

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

      Delete
    12. You are the only one being biased here. (to support your woo/monster belief) It is truly sad to see though. There are many proofs of this hoax. You just choose to ignore them all, and jump through many bigfoot hoops to make it real in your mind. Good for you!

      Not...

      Like I said previously, if you truly believe there is a 8 foot tall 1200 pound ape like monster running around North America undiscovered, there is your problem. A lack of critical thinking skills.

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

      Delete
    14. Again, you must not have looked at any of the images I've posted. Scroll up.

      Your rhetoric is tired, and has been used for years to try and promote this old hoax. It reminds me a lot of this image. (you will certainly ignore as well)

      http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/religion.jpg

      I have some news for you that you may not like, or refuse to coherently digest. In the real world, bigfoot is a myth and does not exist. (if you feel differently, please prove otherwise) There has to be a bigfoot in order for one to be filmed, correct? As soon as you can prove that such a creature exists, or existed to begin with at any point in time, you can start trying to bolster any bigfoot film you like. This one has been proven time and again to be a hoax, only to be ignored by hardcore bigfooters like yourself. It only goes to show your own bias, and deluded view on the world. Prove it wasn't a man in a suit. We know they exist. We can prove it. You want to hear something very funny? ALL, every single one of bigfoot reports that have been resolved or solved have turned out to be humans hoaxing, or misidentifying other animal sign. (sometimes intentionally) Again, if you feel differently, prove it.

      Claimed bigfoot evidence leads to one place, and one place only. To humans hoaxing/fabricating/lying in order to support their beliefs or their wallets. If you feel differently, prove ONE that actually lead to a real bigfoot.

      There are many proofs of this hoax, in the form in the footprints Patterson filmed, in the form of Pattersons beard growth supposedly in one day, in the form of Krantz documenting Patterson "making fake tracks" when he was in the Bluff Creek area, and making a film of it.

      You also have to ignore Bob Heironimus who was the guy in the suit. You have to ignore the fact that Pattersons wife and Gimlin refuse to be interviewed with him present, and they refuse to sue him for libel. Do you know why? Because he's telling the truth!

      Your silly beliefs will not bring you a bigfoot. You will be disappointed time and time again, and in the end hopefully you'll wake up to the reality of this world being bigfoot free. Your trolling on the blog does not reinforce the PGF subject being a real entity. All it does is show your extreme bias, and refusal to see truth, all the while ignoring scientific and photographic proof of the hoax.

      You want to believe? Go ahead, don't expect the rest of us to drink the same kool-aid you do.

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

    ReplyDelete
  53. Do you really think something of this size walks around our forests undiscovered in 2014? Seriously?

    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/twelveftSasq002.jpg

    Footers like yourself like to say things like "it couldnt have been faked like that back in 1967" or things like "using materials of the day, its impossible"

    Horse crap! lol. The following images are from 1954.

    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/PHANTOMOFTHERUEMORGUE19541.jpg
    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/CHARLESGEMORAAPPLYINGEYEBLACK.jpg

    You want some explainations of suit flaws or how a guy in a suit would fit the film subject?

    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/hipwadersfold.gif
    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/trap.jpg
    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/greenarrow2.gif
    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/turtle.gif
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVY6rtogFBI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  54. The youtube link didnt work right, here is the correct link.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMrt_uxjv50

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uhhh, no. You're ignoring the proof of the hoax. The film Patterson presented as coming from these events contained not only a guy in a fur suit. It contained images of Patterson making a cast of a print that was allegedly from the film subject. Also there was footage of Patterson displaying the casts by a large tree. The casting footage shows proof of the footprints being hoaxed. Read the article above.

      The display footage also shows proof of the hoax in the way of Pattersons beard growth. (in the casting footage, he is completely clean shaven, and in the display footage he has a heavy beard growth of about a week) Patterson and Gimlin both claimed that footage was all shot on the same day. (October 20th 1967) The beard growth on Patterson proves their story is false.

      The footprints were also used as proof of the event, only Pattersons own film shows proof they were hoaxed. (as well as Krantz inadvertently documenting this via his book) If you don't think these things are important, ask Jeff Meldrum how important the footprints are to the event. He wrote a paper and published it on the footprints, and tried to declare a new species from them. (what a joke!!! pseudo science at its best!! lol)

      Also, supposedly Patterson had this film developed (kodachrome) after his filming even on a friday, and had the film displayed on a Sunday for several people. How/where did he get it developed?

      Kodak had a patented process for that certain kind of film, those processing plants were the only ones doing that development (by order of law!) and those plants were closed on the weekends! The nearest one to the event or Pattersons home was in Palo Alto CA. That film could not have been developed in the timeline Patterson and Gimlin both give for the events. It is IMPOSSIBLE, and yet a third proof of the hoax. But we're not finished, there is more you must ignore and more hoops you must jump through to believe this is a real bigfoot.

      The actor in the suit came out!!! Bob Heironimus walked in that suit for Patterson. Gimlin won't even do skeptical interviews! He refuses to do an interview with Heironimus. Heironimus has passed multiple lie detector tests, and has eye witnesses to him being in possession of a suit around that same time, and he was a friend of Pattersons and only lived about a block from him. He also starred in Pattersons documentary that he was making on bigfoot... and Patterson and Gimlin borrowed his horse.

      But wait, theres more! There is no such thing as the creature called "bigfoot". That is the biggest hoop of all that you have to jump through in order to believe this to represent a real animal.

      You've presented NOTHING that has shown this to be a real animal. You purposely ignore the proof of the hoax, and continue to claim its real despite multiple proofs of the hoax being made available to you.

      Perhaps in time, one of Pattersons relatives will spill it. (or Gimlins) For you though, I feel truly sorry. I hope you will one day wake up to reality and throw away your silly bigfoot idol.

      Delete
    2. You also probably like to ignore Harvey Andersons speakings about Patterson. Or the fact he stole other artwork and presented it as his own, as well as telling storys about bigfoot picking up one end of his VW.

      All true of course. ;)

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  57. Dude I can't even tell what you are talking about with your poor spelling an rambling. The images were from the film. I have high resolution scans from Bill Munns directly.

    What do you have to say about the suit flaws? About the faked footprints? About Pattersons beard growth? About the film development issues?

    If you continue to ignore things, I will just strike you up as another deluded footer. I'm attempting to have a real discussion with you but that is proving to be silly on my part. You can ignore everything you choose. Some footers are seriously deluded is all I have to say about it. Are you Mormon by any chance?

    ReplyDelete
  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah, you've just proven to be another typical footer that ignores everything that disputes is savior. You did absolutely nothing to support your position of the pgf film subject being a real bigfoot. All you did was complain about there being no proof when there are many. You've once again shown that bigfooters can carry around extreme belief systems and ignore all disputing evidence. That's Great.....

      You addressed nothing, proved nothing, you got nothing. = typical bigfooter claim.

      Only not really... Being ignorant is no way to go through life son. Grow up.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your made up numbers are interesting! Tell me, how did you come to the conclusion that the Patterson film subject was 7' 3" tall and over 700 lbs?

      I'll be waiting for your proof of that, much less that there are any bigfoots, yet alone one that was filmed.

      The true fail is yours, not being able to realize you've been duped for many years by these guys and you still believe there is a large hairy monster ape running around north america. I feel sorry for you. I hope one day you'll achieve some critical thinking skills.

      Delete
  60. what are you so upset about..you seem very unhappy whats wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  61. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, walk me through that please. How do you come to the conclusion the Patterson subject is 7' 3" inches tall. Please explain. (your science must be duplicable, and verified numbers you're starting with)

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

      Delete
  62. Oh, I'm quite familiar with the NASI report that was made about the film. It was tanked with errors and assumptions made from testimony. Also, the report noted some problems with the reported stride lengths and what was seen on film. This report cost quite a bit to produce if I remember correctly. Let me teach you a little lesson about bigfoot. It's going to be about "professionals" that endorse the topic getting paid to do things related to bigfoot. You might know something about this, seeing as you tend to promote the whole bigfoot thing. So start with this, its always going to be about money. There is no such thing as bigfoot. It does not exist! (literally, its not in any taxonomy catalogs. it does not exist!) If you feel differently, prove it!

    So, the made up monster, that the NASI report (paid endorsement of bigfootology) says the subject was 7' 3" based on Hodgens who was photographed in the same setting next to a dead tree. What the NASI report did not take into account was the distances between the tree and the film subject, and Hodgns distance between the tree. The ground at that location is quite varied, as seen in the Green footage of McClarin (who I've personally spoken with about this) walking through the same scene and following what was left of the footprints allegedly left by the film subject.

    If you compare the one KNOWN measurement from the scene that was also presented by Patterson as coming from those events; the footprint casts that were made of the impressions. You can then compare this with the size of the foot of the film subject to get an estimate on height. You can also use photogrammetry based on reported measurements taken by several people at differing times.

    The most accurate would be the footprint casts compared to the foot of the film subject. (this is a form of photogrammetry used to scale items with a known measurement in photographs and films)

    Those measurements show the film subject to be within a 5-10 to 6' 3" height range (with that range of error) Not the 7' 3" at all. In fact if you compare images directly of the feet and the casts stacked next to the film subject you can duplicate this yourself very easily as many have already done (they are out there posted all over the internet! all of them claim height of around 6' tall as an average)

    You may also compare the film subject with McClarins height next to some of the same objects in both films. In this case it appears that McClarin and the Patterson subject are almost identical in height. It also shows that McClarin (who personally told me he was following the footprints left still, and he had seen them only days after also) walks a different path than did the Patterson film subject. What does this mean?

    It means that the film subject walked a different path then the footprints were. It means that when they faked the footprints, they did so further away from the camera than the film subject walked. (compare the two films!)

    Also, Didn't this NASI report try and claim the film subject weighed 1957 pounds??? Really?

    So yes, I'm quite familiar with many of the failed attempts at trying to make the film subject appear larger than a human. You can check for yourself on google for many other height estimates with "patterson film foot as a ruler".

    These two images demonstrate that point fairly well. In order for the film subject to actually be 7' 3" tall the foot would have to be very small in comparison. The first image shows feet stacked to 7' 3". The second shows how small the foot would have to be in order for this film subject to be 7' 3". Owned. Next? Got more cooky assumptions about the film you assume to be true?? lol

    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/foot-1.jpg
    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/foot2.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  63. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to help you out one last time here. First of all, its "you're" if you're trying to insult me. Second of all, Bob Heironimus is a good guy despite bigfooters demonizing of him. Third, I understand now why you are fooled by all this cooky stuff. Good luck with your future. I hope you'll educate yourself on bigfoot, and on the film.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, again you are mistaken. Here are two images that show clearly the beard and the clean shaven face. Even Bill Munns conceeds this. Are you going to dispute clear photographic evidence? Really? Showing your bias a tad.. lol.

      Iinstead of spending your time trying to insult skeptics (very poorly i might add! lol) you should perhaps study the film you keep making mistakes about.

      http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/beard.jpg
      http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/cleanshaven.jpg

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

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Munns also agrees there are no footprints visible past Patterson in the casting footage. Where he and I disagree is, he tries to disassociate this footage with the events of that day, as does Meldrum (both try to change Pattersons and Gimlins own story to match their own theories about how the vents occured)

      Munns tries to claim "we dont know where this footprint footage and casting footage came from" or about Krantz menion of it, he calls it a "practice casting foootage" so there must be two scenes? uhh.... sure.

      In Gimlins OWN WORDS he shot that film of Patterson there that day.
      (allegedly, as he claims) so there you have it.

      http://werd.us/riv3r/yeah.mp3

      Delete
    2. Meldrum about the beard issue tries to claim that the footage must have been shot later in Yakima, disputing both Pattersons and Gimlins story. So they change the story to fit their own ASSUMPTIONS made about the film. How convenient! :D

      Gimlin still stays with the same story, it was all shot there the same day at Bluff Creek. (despite the beard growth, and missing footprints etc) he sticks to his story.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, you are seriously deluded. I'm sorry to say that even. Lets say you were correct that "patty" is over 7 foot tall as you tried to claim. Prove it! Your baseless rants are nothing but mindless troll bait.

      If "patty" were to be 7' 3" as you claimed the feet would HAVE TO BE THIS SIZE. lol. You just don't get it... It's IMPOSSIBLE for the film subject to be 7' 3" and the footprints be 14½ inches long. Math just doesnt work like that man! lol....

      http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/foot2.jpg

      No wonder footers get fooled easily. You aren't exactly the brightest footer ive debated these topics with. Please, for the sake of your own future, educate yourself before you go online trying to rant about something you know nothing about!

      }-)

      Delete
  68. lets use your numbers of 5 ft 10 to 6 ft 3 inches tall. Its a no brainer that your honest hero. Bob H..knows how tall he is standing in his costume 6 ft 7 ..congratulations you finally ptoved its not Bob H. In the costume. .good job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool, so please explain (or rather PROVE) how this costume you've imagined adds 7 inches to someones height. Bob Heironimus is around 6' tall. When I wear boots and a hat it makes me about an inch taller. You've convinced yourself to believe in fairy tales, and backed yourself into a corner of tom foolery. Wake up, It's a dude in a suit. Big foot does not exist!

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

    ReplyDelete
  70. You're hilarious! So if we add 2 inches to Heironimus it's supposed to eliminate him from potential person in the suit??? Lets see, that puts him within an inch of the estimate. Hilarious! Even if you eliminate Heironimus from the picture, why are you convinced it would have to be authentic if it were to be say Patterson himself in the suit instead. Why does it effect the claim? What you are starting to do here, is goal post move. There are many proofs this was a hoax, and if the footprints were indeed proved fake why would the costume feet have to match the size? You see where I'm going with this? It is only important if the film subject is authentic, and the tracks were authentic. You can fake tracks whatever size you want, and have them a different size on the costume.

    I'd love to hear how you can specify the exact height of the film subject once you take that little part into consideration. If you cannot rely on the footprints as scale, how are you to determine the height? Like Glickman did? The footprints proved his estimate to be false. If the film represents a real creature, the feet must be approximately the same size as the cookie cutter shaped casts that were made.

    It is a double edged sword for believers. One that puts this film subject around 6' if you were to believe it left the footprints Patterson said it did. Otherwise, good luck scaling any of this! You want my personal theory? Who cares! If you have the actual suit would you be demanding a DNA test be done to the inside of the suit to make sure Heironimus was or wasnt the guy?? lol....

    Here is the most important point to it all. Patterson filmed proof of his hoax. In the form if his beard growth, and the missing footprints. Why do you think this film was blown off rather quickly by scientists back in the day??? The same reason it still is today... because anyone with any sense knows there is no such thing as bigfoot. It doesnt take a very good set of critical thinking skills to get that far with it even. If you want to believe Bob Heironimus had nothing to do with Patterson and his film making adventures, go ahead.

    I guess Pattersons family and Gimlin just look the other way at poor ole Heironimus and his wild claims on about 10 television shows. Why havent they sued him for libel? Or at least gone on camera and disputed him or interviewed with him??

    You know the answer! lol. The same reason I can say clearly here without fear of reprisal from any of the people involved in the hoax. You can't sue people for telling the truth! lol. You can only sue them for telling lies about you....

    ;)

    You should make this your avatar here. It is fitting. You seem to have some serious hatred towards Bob Heironimus for some reason.

    http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/2qwhqj6.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  71. http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/127007/Beating-a-dead-horse.gif

    ReplyDelete