It would seem that way.
But there has been a lot of fun and ribbing along the way, so that's ok.
Bigfoot Fact or Fiction
- Thread starter BigFoot
- Start date
It would seem that way.
But there has been a lot of fun and ribbing along the way, so that's ok.
- Thread starter
- #102
Bob Hieronimous 
Below is an excerpt from the BFRO website. Here is a link to the full story.http://www.bfro.net/news/korff_scam.asp
A national Geographic episode featured a new liar "confessing" to be "the man in the costume." His name is Bob Hieronimous. Millions of people apparently saw that episode, or heard about it from others, because people often bring it up with us. His "confession" has even found its way into foreign publications describing nature mysteries around the world.
At least this confessor lived in Yakima (where Patterson was from). Hieronimous claims he was friends with Roger Patterson, and accompanied Patterson and Gimlin to Nor Cal with his costume. Patterson's widow says he's lying. Bob Gimlin says he's lying. No one can corroborate Hieronimous' claim that he accompanied Patterson and Gimlin. Various living witnesses near Bluff Creek say Patterson and Gimlin were not accompanied by anyone. No one ever saw Hieronimous with those two. Hieronimous doesn't know where they went exactly, or which route they too ... Indeed, there is every reason to believe Hieronimous is trying to attach himself to the Patterson story with his own fiction.
Below is an excerpt from the BFRO website. Here is a link to the full story.http://www.bfro.net/news/korff_scam.asp
A national Geographic episode featured a new liar "confessing" to be "the man in the costume." His name is Bob Hieronimous. Millions of people apparently saw that episode, or heard about it from others, because people often bring it up with us. His "confession" has even found its way into foreign publications describing nature mysteries around the world.
At least this confessor lived in Yakima (where Patterson was from). Hieronimous claims he was friends with Roger Patterson, and accompanied Patterson and Gimlin to Nor Cal with his costume. Patterson's widow says he's lying. Bob Gimlin says he's lying. No one can corroborate Hieronimous' claim that he accompanied Patterson and Gimlin. Various living witnesses near Bluff Creek say Patterson and Gimlin were not accompanied by anyone. No one ever saw Hieronimous with those two. Hieronimous doesn't know where they went exactly, or which route they too ... Indeed, there is every reason to believe Hieronimous is trying to attach himself to the Patterson story with his own fiction.
When discussing extraordinary (a friendly term for outlandish or preposterous) claims, the onus is on the claimant to provide credible evidence.
Bob Hieronimous
Below is an excerpt from the BFRO website. Here is a link to the full story.http://www.bfro.net/news/korff_scam.asp
A national Geographic episode featured a new liar "confessing" to be "the man in the costume." His name is Bob Hieronimous. Millions of people apparently saw that episode, or heard about it from others, because people often bring it up with us. His "confession" has even found its way into foreign publications describing nature mysteries around the world.
At least this confessor lived in Yakima (where Patterson was from). Hieronimous claims he was friends with Roger Patterson, and accompanied Patterson and Gimlin to Nor Cal with his costume. Patterson's widow says he's lying. Bob Gimlin says he's lying. No one can corroborate Hieronimous' claim that he accompanied Patterson and Gimlin. Various living witnesses near Bluff Creek say Patterson and Gimlin were not accompanied by anyone. No one ever saw Hieronimous with those two. Hieronimous doesn't know where they went exactly, or which route they too ... Indeed, there is every reason to believe Hieronimous is trying to attach himself to the Patterson story with his own fiction.
Yes, well...
The website you mention unfortunately is a rabid "Bigfoot exists!" site, so I do take whatever they say with a grain. I think that's apparent by the constant use of the word "liar!" in their paragraph.
There are other sites that reference the gentleman in not so harsh a spotlight, including interviews with his lawyer mere months after the film made the headlines, records of which exists, where he asked if he could get in trouble for what he did because Patterson sold the "exclusive distribution rights" to his film to several parties simultaneously.
As for Patterson and Gimlin not knowing him, that would be strange as it is a documented fact that he lived next door to Gimlin.
As I said, the man is ON the Patterson film, in reel 2, that's a bit of a detail that is hard to deny.
Last edited:
Now there's a Rabbit Bigfoot? 
That's no ordinary rabbit..........
No it sure isn't. And to think that the one the man is holding is just a tiny baby Bigfoot Rabbit.......... It boggles the mind!
- Thread starter
- #109
Better than being a Rabid BigFoot. Could you imagine one of those suckers running at you foaming from the mouth.
OK back on topic. What is the topic.....oh yeah BigFoot. What do you think about the Jacobs Creature. I say it is a primate of some kind. Maybe a juvenile BigFoot. The first picture are bear cubs. The next two are of Sasquatch.
OK back on topic. What is the topic.....oh yeah BigFoot. What do you think about the Jacobs Creature. I say it is a primate of some kind. Maybe a juvenile BigFoot. The first picture are bear cubs. The next two are of Sasquatch.
Last edited:
Better than being a Rabid BigFoot. Could you imagine one of those suckers running at you foaming from the mouth.
OK back on topic. What is the topic.....oh yeah BigFoot. What do you think about the Jacobs Creature. I say it is a primate of some kind. Maybe a juvenile BigFoot. The first picture are bear cubs. The next two are of Sasquatch.
Interesting pictures. I sure would love to see some high res versions of those.
Any links? (my squinty eyes ain't what they used to be).
- Thread starter
- #111
I just shut down Phil. I am using my phone. The BFRO website has some good pictures. Otherwise just put Jacobs creature in your search engine.
Don't discount any theories until you have considered all the evidence:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MV1cjTvVkk&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MV1cjTvVkk&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/YOUTUBE]
Thanks for the link. Indeed scale and perspective can be quite misleading.
Very detailed and reasonable analysis.
As I said earlier the BFRO web site is convinced and is quite harsh with anyone who disagees with their opinion, The guy doing this review of the photos points out their leaps of faith. without relying on any evidence.
- Thread starter
- #116
Damn Phil, I have to agree with you this time. There is another site who has been posting pics of a trail cam they have had going in Washington or Northern CA I don't remember. The photography from it is amazing. There are a few bizzare pics from it. I will post the link later on. Even if you find the Bigfoot pics hogwash the rest are worth looking at.
This is all interesting stuff.
Don't take my skepticism as a complete refusal to look at evidence. I was just commenting that we haven't got it yet. Doesn't mean we won't at some point.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Hamlet Act 1, scene 5
- Thread starter
- #118
Here is a link on why there is not a lot of evidence. I am still looking for the trail cam photos. It may be later this afternoon. To me the most compelling part of this is the fact the thread has not died on here.
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=407
Here is a link on why there is not a lot of evidence. I am still looking for the trail cam photos. It may be later this afternoon. To me the most compelling part of this is the fact the thread has not died on here.
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=407
I think it's you and I that keeping it alive at this point
See, my problem here is you keep referencing that BFRO website, and they make a whole ton of assumptions that are not based on any fact.
I have real issue with some of the things they say in the points why no evidence exists "One can assume.." "It is presumed..."
Hunters;
Bloodhounds can track any human, but they can only track humans because it is how they are trained? Obviously a statement made by someone who knows nothing about dogs or tracking. No hunter has ever shot a Bigfoot because there isn't a Bigfoot season, and people don't want to get in trouble with the law? C'mon. Really?
No Physical Evidence;
"There is a lot of evidence, like hair samples and scat." If this were genuinely true, DNA testing would prove what type of animal it was. If a DNA test was performed and determined to be from an species previously unknown - that my friend would be front page news.
Lack of Remains;
"Millions of gigantos (a branch of the wood ape line) lived and died in Asia over the ages. All the remaining physical evidence we have of them could fit into a few shoe boxes. Fossils of any land animal are very rare." Sure. That may be true. But they are misdirecting attention by referencing a species which died out a half a million years ago, which allows plenty of time for remains to be scattered and reabsorbed into the biomass. Bigfoot is reportedly a living species. Even the remains of people who have been lost and died in the forests have been stumbled across, and I'd bet they are every bit as rare as Bigfoot are reported to be.
Again, BFRO is tainted from the outset, and cannot be taken as a serious research group.
Their main page states;
"To many, these facts, taken together, suggest the presence of an animal, probably a primate, that exists today in very low population densities. If true, this species, having likely evolved alongside humans, became astonishingly adept at avoiding human contact through a process of natural selection.
To others, these same facts point to a cultural phenomenon kept alive today through a combination of the misidentification of known animals, wishful thinking, and the deliberate fabrication of evidence.
The BFRO, and its members, take the former view."
I am willing to keep an open mind, but clearly, the BFRO is not.
Hey chaps. Another angle to keep in mind about the "skunk ape" phenomena. Have you ever been up close to a boar bear? I have, in a way. When I was about fifteen years old we lived in central Missouri for a little while. There was a wild animal park near Springfield Mo. called(I think) Exotic Animal Paradise. This was a drive through refuge type place where you could get a decent, up close look at all sorts of fauna. It was really quite a place.
Yet there was one area of the park that stood out immediately. It was a walk through area that had caged beasts like lion, bear, and other large, fanged creatures that were impressive to say the least. The one that stood out the most was the boar grizzly. I mean to say that by "standing out" you could not help but smell the thing nearly fifty yards distant. And I do mean smell him. Now mind you, this was not some wild roaming bear that had rolled in a dead carcass or been eating carrion to pick up a stench. This thing was in a large metal cage sort of affair and was fed by its handlers. The stench it let off was abomination. I can almost still smell it in my imagination and that was thirty three years ago! It was horrid. A sort of combination of vomit, arse, soured sweat, rancid musk, and... I don't know what all. Suffice it to say that nearly everyone withing sniffing distance was looking for a place to chuck up their lunch. It was that bad. So I think there is a real possibility many of the skunk ape reports are misidentified bears. If it is any consolation there was a black bear a little ways away from the griz and he was only marginally less stanky. Just a thought.
Regards, Todd
Yet there was one area of the park that stood out immediately. It was a walk through area that had caged beasts like lion, bear, and other large, fanged creatures that were impressive to say the least. The one that stood out the most was the boar grizzly. I mean to say that by "standing out" you could not help but smell the thing nearly fifty yards distant. And I do mean smell him. Now mind you, this was not some wild roaming bear that had rolled in a dead carcass or been eating carrion to pick up a stench. This thing was in a large metal cage sort of affair and was fed by its handlers. The stench it let off was abomination. I can almost still smell it in my imagination and that was thirty three years ago! It was horrid. A sort of combination of vomit, arse, soured sweat, rancid musk, and... I don't know what all. Suffice it to say that nearly everyone withing sniffing distance was looking for a place to chuck up their lunch. It was that bad. So I think there is a real possibility many of the skunk ape reports are misidentified bears. If it is any consolation there was a black bear a little ways away from the griz and he was only marginally less stanky. Just a thought.
Regards, Todd
Similar threads
