September 24, 2010

Roger Knights - Pure Genius!!!

It has been a very long time since I have read anything posted, anywhere, written by Roger Knights. Mr. Knights has spent more time looking into the Patterson Gimlin Film, than anyone I have ever seen post on a message board.

Today a member of my message board ( by the name of "justwondering" posted this detailed list of problems with Bob Heronimus's story. I had almost forgot about this very involved detailing of the many mistakes made by Bob H.

I am posting "A Tale of Two Suits: 26 Reasons Heironimus Wasn't "Queen Kong", June 20, 2005 by Roger Knights." You will not be dissapointed.

Thank you Roger for creating this list!! Pure Genius.


A Tale of Two Suits: 26 Reasons Heironimus Wasn't "Queen Kong", June 20, 2005

By Roger Knights

HOWEVER ....: Here are 26 Reasons Bob Heironimus (BH) Wasn't Queen Kong (the Bigfoot in the 1967 Patterson film).

A. BH's initial description of the suit that he wore, supposedly made by Patterson, is very different from the suit he later agreed that he wore, supposedly supplied by costume-maker Philip Morris. BH described the suit he thought Patterson had made as having a zipperless upper torso part that BH donned like putting on a T-shirt (pp. 344-45). At Bluff Creek he put on "the top" (BH's words, p. 349). Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring. Morris made a unibody-type union suit that zipped up the back and into which one stepped (p. 449). It had no torso part or top like Patterson's (supposed) top-and-trousers affair. This difference between them was one he couldn't possibly have mistaken or forgotten.

And there were other differences that would have been hard to miss, such as the pronounced difference in hand-feel between heavy, supple, rubbery horsehide and the light, mesh-fabric-backed Dynel in Morris's. There might be an innocent explanation for BH's changing his story to accommodate Long's Morris-Suit theory--but it's hard to think of one.

B. BH implied he possessed a suit for only two days before Patterson reclaimed it. BH let that implication stand when he reviewed the manuscript.

But there is testimony (e.g., pp. 47-48, 232, 331 & 397) that indicates that he showed off a suit (not described in detail) from his trunk several times over the years (no dates given). (Long avoided confronting what this implied, and instead--I think as a distraction--fretted over the minor issue of when BH confessed to his buddies to being in the suit (pp. 366, 370-71 & 412).)

In addition, I've located a witness, GR (seen in a photo on p. 409), to whom BH showed the suit in 1968, a date he is sure of because he was in the armed forces throughout 1967. He described the suit to me in detail, and its features match neither the Morris suit shown on p. 460, nor Queen Kong, namely: a top-and-trousers affair, lacking a zipper in the back (i.e., not Morris's back-zippered jump-suit); no rubber waders in the legs; no latex chest piece; no breasts; not made of leather; cotton-lined or -padded; lightweight (upper portion only two or three pounds); no shoulder pads; not oversized (no barrel chest or thunder thighs); hair four or five inches long (Morris suits' hair was 1-3 inches--p. 449); head not oversize; no helmet inside.

Further, BH indicated to others that he currently owned the suit used by Patterson at Bluff Creek. For instance, on p. 397, Bernard Hammermeister described being shown the suit in the trunk, and said that BH said to him that that's what he wore when he and P&G went down and did "our thing." No date was given (why didn't Long ask--or print the answer!?), but the familiar way he referred to the filming as "our thing" suggests that it had by then achieved enough fame to be referred to off-handedly like that. Certainly, if the suit had been displayed the Friday BH returned from Bluff Creek, his listeners wouldn't have known what he was referring to, since there had been no media coverage of the filming at that point. And BH stated in May 2005 on TV that "I didn't tell them what it was." when he displayed his suit on his return. I.e., he purposely did NOT indicate its role.

And on p. 398 there is another clue that the date was long after the filming. Hammermeister said that BH told him he did it, and he didn't want it spread around for awhile, although he had the suit and he showed him, because "there was still supposed to be payola" that he hadn't received. The word "still" pretty much rules out the possibility that he displayed the suit immediately after returning from Bluff Creek.

There might have been a way Long could have "explained" BH's possession of a second (yeah, right) suit. But BH's implicit attempt to conceal its existence from readers can't be explained away. It's very damaging to his credibility. The most likely explanation for such evasiveness is to conceal that he was a long-time car-trunk ape-suit show-off (i.e., he had perhaps been claiming to pals to have hoaxed pre-Patterson local-area Bigfoot sightings (p. 232)), and that his mom's car-trunk ape-suit sighting fell in that category.

C. BH's descriptions (pp. 366-67) of Bluff Creek's locale are incorrect, especially the distance he traveled up the last road, as J. Green noted. (BH said four or five miles (p. 348), the map says 20.)

D. BH plainly implied that Patterson didn't run forward with camera in hand at the start, and that he observed (or heard tell of) Patterson sitting on horseback and shaking it instead (p. 337; see also p. 349.) (The initial phase of the film is a jumble of images.) But analysis of the film (pp. 375-76) proves that Patterson did run forward, because the creature is larger (i.e., closer) in later frames.

E. BH stated in an interview, and indicated in the book (p. 349), that he walked across Bluff Creek, implying it was dry at the time. But John Green asked knowledgeable gov't. officials if Bluff Creek ever runs dry, and they said No. And even if it had, climbing its two-foot embankment would have been awkward in a suit. It wouldn't have been part of a hoax--especially if its filming was too jerky to make sense to viewers.

F. BH gave three details of Patterson's behavior during their Bluff Creek expedition that would have been reasonable if the shooting had occurred the day before the announcement of the filming to the press. These were (p. 350): lending BH the suit to take to Yakima, giving BH the film to mail to DeAtley, and saying he was going back to make tracks that night or the next day.

However, 23 & 70 pages later (on pp. 373-74 & 420-21), BH and Long claimed that the filming took place in September, perhaps in early Sept. But in September none of Patterson's three behaviors would make any sense. There would have been no need for concealment of the suit, nor for speedy delivery of the film, nor for premature track-creation (which could have degraded or been discovered in the interim), if no announcement to the press was imminent.

Despite his awareness of this fact, Long absurdly stated (p. 350) that they [P&G] didn't want to be caught with the costume, which is why they handed it over to BH for transport. He was apparently relying on readers not rereading the book and noticing the contradiction.

G. Another irrationality would have been for Patterson to remove the suit from its sack (p. 350) before giving it to BH to take back to Yakima. Why expose it to tumbling and dirtying, and possible visibility to bystanders when Patterson reclaimed it, or if BH's mom happened to open the trunk? (But BH needed this absurd detail, and one below (H), to enable "discovery" by his mom.)

H. Another irrationality is for Patterson to have told BH to leave the suit in his mom's car for him to retrieve when he returned BH's horse, for convenience's sake (p. 355). But it would have been more convenient and safer for Patterson not to have had to retrieve it at all, but for BH to have dropped it off at Gimlin's, whose house was right off the Interstate's exit (on Rudkin Rd.), which BH would have driven past on the way to his mom's and the Idle Hour bar. P&G had to stop there first anyway, to feed, water, and stable their horses.

Other possible drop-off locations were BH's own place then (on Hackett Rd., just a block off S. Wiley Rd. that led to the Idle Hour), or at Gimlin's parents' then (just a bit off Ahtanum Rd., on the way to and from the Idle Hour). Or in a storage locker at a bus or train terminal. If Patterson was so worried about some outsider seeing the suit that he let it out of his hands, surely he would have preferred such methods for their greater security.

Further, on p. 363, it was pointed out that one of BH's mom's routines was to place apple boxes in the trunk to hold the apples she frequently bought at a local fruit stand. (I suspect that she normally did this on a Saturday.) So how come BH, knowing that, failed to anticipate and protect against the possibility that she'd discover the suit, ruining everything? (I suspect he DID anticipate precisely that.)

I. It would have been irrational for Patterson to tell BH to mail the film, since BH was heading up to Yakima anyway and could drop it off at DeAtley's himself. That would have been cheaper, faster, and safer. (The only reason Patterson shipped the film to DeAtley was that he intended to remain in Bluff Creek hoping to catch another sight of the creature-a plan that was abandoned after heavy rains forced him to leave. That makes no sense in BH's scenario: since Patterson knew the creature was a phony, and since the filming was in Sept., he wouldn't have hung around longer than the day it took to make the tracks-certainly no one would credit him with sincerity for doing so. So there'd have been no reason for him to hand the film over to BH. BH apparently didn't think things through and realize this, and instead just figured that since Patterson shipped the film to Yakima, it would make sense for him to claim so too.)

J. What did BH do with the postal receipt? (Patterson would have required such a valuable package to be insured and shipped by registered mail.) A receipt would have included the date, the sending location, and the addressee-powerful stuff. He can't say he discarded it, since Patterson would have told him to keep it until he heard from Patterson the package had been received in good condition. And he wouldn't have discarded it after that point, since he now says he wanted evidence to back up his claim he was involved in the filming. According to his latest (May 17, 2005) story, he displayed the suit to acquaintances at a tavern upon his return for precisely this purpose. And he can't say he gave it to Patterson either, for one of three reasons:

* He implies he never encountered him again (p. 361). Or, if he actually did encounter Patterson:
* It would be implausible for him to have meekly coughed it up, since Patterson's request would have been the perfect opportunity to tell Patterson that he'd hand it over after he got paid. Or, if he lacked the nerve to say that (unlikely):
* He could easily claimed to have discarded it, or at least to have left it at home. (Whereupon he could have made a photo or photocopy before transferring it.)

K. P&G's making two trips to Bluff Creek is unlikely, since they lacked the time and money for such gallivanting. It's made unlikelier still by the bright-red foliage-colors in the PG film, which typically don't occur there until October in that intensity, and hence couldn't have been filmed in September, as Long claims (p. 421). Another objection to a September date, as pointed out by John Green, was BH's statement (p. 349), that it was October and they had hunters out there. Another objection is that Dahinden's analysis of the light and shadow patterns in the film indicated a late-October date.

L. BH never described writing or talking to Patterson requesting payment, as he surely would have done if he had had a valid claim. He had lost three days off from work, 20 hours on the road, travel expenses, a scratch on his mom's car, etc. And he'd been disrespected. So he wouldn't have taken non-payment lying down. And he wasn't a business entity like the phone company who would have turned the matter over to a collection agency. In a realistic scenario, BH (backed if necessary by his three brothers) would have become his own collection agency. BH said on p. 351 that he tried to run into Roger and Bob a couple of times. But a letter to Patterson putting him on notice that'd he'd go to the press would have done the trick.

And BH never appealed to one of Patterson's four siblings, or his spouse, for assistance in reaching Patterson or in making him see reason and avoid the embarrassment to his family that would ensue from a hoax-exposure. This was an obvious point of leverage-and a postcard would have worked. Their addresses were in the phone book, and BH was well acquainted with Patterson's wife, Patty, whom he'd been friendly with since childhood (p. 344).

M. BH failed to hire a lawyer to threaten to sue Patterson & DeAtley when they were raking in the dough and a threat of exposure would have had leverage to obtain far more than his $1000 debt. (As Igor Bourtsev has pointed out, it would have been absurd for Patterson to have put his whole gravy train and reputation at risk by not paying a relative pittance for BH's silence.)

N. BH unaccountably failed to complain bitterly about Patterson in private. Possibly he feared if he did so his friends would then urge him to see a lawyer, and he would lose credibility if he declined. A lawyer would have requested supporting evidence that should then have existed, like his name in the logbook of the motel he stayed at in Eureka (p. 350), or the location of the October 19 film site, or records indicating his absence from work. (All three days were weekdays, according to p. 347.)

O. BH told his friends that he didn't want to publicly make a stink about being stiffed because he hoped for eventual payment by Patterson (p. 398). If so, it would have been irrational for him to have acted as he did--i.e., by occasionally spilling the beans and/or showing off the suit. That violated his pledge of confidentiality and amounted to voiding his contract. Rational creditors adopt the opposite policy: they are polite but firm, and studiously avoid giving the debtor an excuse to take umbrage. And, given his past soft-spokenness about RP, BH's current indignation over others' making money (pp. 336, 340 & 370) is suspiciously peculiar.

And why did BH continue to pussyfoot even after Roger's death in 1972? Long stated, in a radio interview on the Rense show, that Bob H. held out hope that if he kept his promise to keep his mouth shut he would get paid. In a talk at the Mill Creek Library on Jan. 27, 2005, Long asserted, "Patricia Patterson continues to sell the rights to the movie ..., she's made hundreds of thousands over the years ...." But BH never contacted Pat Patterson requesting payment, as he surely would have once he realized the film was still garnering TV royalties. It might be that he hesitated to confront Roger Patterson, an irrational hothead, but there should have been no inhibition about approaching an old acquaintance like Patty. Surely SHE'd have seen the wisdom of paying a little hush money to protect her revenue stream. Since BH said she observed him rehearsing in her husband's Bigfoot costume (p. 344), he knew she was aware that the film was a hoax and couldn't fob him off with a claim of being unwitting.

Long also stated in the Rense interview, that although BH never stated this, he was sure BH was concerned about legal ramifications. But there would have been no ramifications in merely contacting Patty, or in hiring a lawyer to do so, because that wouldn't have involved a public revelation. Telling his story to a lawyer wouldn't have voided his confidentiality agreement, because Patterson's non-payment had already voided it. (And there was no need to accuse DeAtley of being in on the hoax-his involvement could easily have been skirted.) Anyway, he had nothing to lose; a spontaneous payout was obviously a forlorn hope after 1975, say. And the possible legal ramifications of going public then would have been less than doing so today, because he'd have been able to back up his claim with records that have now been destroyed, like his work-attendance records and his signature in the logbook of the Eureka motel.

P. In Long's book (pp. 370-71) BH had denied telling his buddies at the Idle Hour about the suit. However, on Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 8 pm EDT, he appeared on the PAX cable network show Lie Detector (the quote below is not from the book) and changed his story. He stated the following on TV:

Bob: "The next day I drove home, and uh, I went to the local watering hole where all us guys hung out. And ... uh, I lifted the trunk up and said, uh, take a look at this. I didn't tell them what it was ... I said just look at this and do not forget what this looks like. Well, TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER, OUT CAME THE MOVIE, you know, on the television, the film. They said, ah ha! That's what you were doing, you know. They brought my horse back the next day, I think it was, and uh, they just took the suit out of the car, and that's the last I ever saw of THAT ORIGINAL Bigfoot suit."

Interviewer: "Why did you show the suit to those guys?"

Bob: "Because I wanted them to know, you know, when they found out what it was that I wasn't lying ... that I really did do this."

It's suspicious when a claimant changes his story from one that makes him look innocent to one that admits of some guiltiness only when new evidence is brought forward. That's what's happened here. BH has now admitted he violated his confidentiality agreement, and has done so only because critics have harped on the many witnesses who'd observed BH displaying his suit. (Most notably, Michael Dennett's review in the Jan./Feb. 2005 Skeptical Inquirer.) The suspicion is that a claimant who was willing to fib to cover up a little guiltiness might still be doing so.

It's also suspicious that he seems to be preparing the ground to claim that he later purchased a second Bigfoot suit, with his on-TV words, "that's the last I ever saw of THAT ORIGINAL Bigfoot suit." This is another revision he has made only when faced by new evidence (a witness to whom he showed an ape-suit in 1968); and it's another revision that reveals his initial version as a self-aggrandizing fib. (I.e., he claimed to Hammermeister (p. 397) that the suit he showed him was the real one used in the film.) Again, the suspicion arises that the claimant may be fibbing as much as he can get away with.

And it's suspicious that he said (on TV, not in the book) that the buddies to whom he'd shown the suit saw the film of Queen Kong on TV news: "TWO OR THREE WEEKS LATER OUT CAME THE MOVIE." This contradicts the September-filming / October-announcement version he gave in the book (on pp. 373-74 & 420-21) and implies the hoax-filming occurred in October.

Q. It's suspicious that BH was evasive with Long (pp. 370-71) when originally pressed about visiting the Idle Hour upon his return and discussing or displaying the suit. BH avoided specifically denying or confirming going to the Idle Hour, or showing the suit off, although that would have been the natural way to answer to Long's probes. Instead, he was deliberately non-responsive (e.g., changing the subject to whether he drank beer there or was a drunkard), thereby leaving wiggle room to later recollect that he HAD done so. It was a carefully crafted (lawyerly?) response.

R. PF, BH's roommate from 1967 through 1970 (p. 370), told me in June 2004 that he'd heard nothing about any Bigfoot suit or film hoax. His being ignorant fitted in with BH's initial version, under which he disremembered displaying a suit and minimized his talking about it. But roommate PF's ignorance is implausible under BH's new I-confided-in-my-buddies-to-obtain-witnesses version. It's more likely that PF knew what really went on, but was answering me in accordance with the code of the Woosters: Don't Let Down a Pal.

S. It's suspicious that, given that BH said on TV he wanted proof "that I'd really done this":

* He apparently didn't give his buddies more than a guarded peek at a nondescript pile of fur in the back of his trunk. That could have been a Halloween-grade ape-suit (and probably was). If he'd really had the goods, he'd have showed off any the Patterson suit's half-dozen unique features. E.g., breasts, for a start, or a glass eye. And this despite saying that he was trying to get them to notice salient details: "I said just look at this and do not forget what this looks like." (Statement on the TV show in 5/05.)
* He didn't take a photo of the suit. He could have bought or borrowed a camera easily, and it would have provided evidence ten times stronger than saying that three of his drinking buddies saw a pile of fur in the back of his trunk. Such a photo could have been sent to Patterson, or to his relatives or associates. The camera doesn't lie, whereas three drinking buddies might stretch a point for a pal. The power of a photo was well known to anyone who'd read a newspaper, or a paperback, or seen a movie.
* He didn't call the motel he'd stayed at and asked them to save the logbook-page he'd signed, and/or send him a photocopy.

T. BH took his lie detector test (pp. 210 & 356) under his own control, which meant he could have suppressed an unfavorable result. The consensus among experts is that such a non-threatening test-environment reduces the subject's anxiety, making it easier for him to pass. And his control may have meant that he knew the questions in advance, which also helps reduce stress.

U. Long stated, in a videotaped speech on March 27, 2004, that there was a strike in progress at BH's employer (the Boise Cascade plywood plant) when BH participated in the filming. Telling Long this might have seemed like a good idea to BH at the time, because it would have partially explained why he participated in Patterson's project without demanding a down payment, and why he failed to aggressively pursue collection of his debt: he was at loose ends and had nothing to lose by spending three weekdays in California. However, I have learned from a WCIW union official who was there at the time, HP, that there was no strike (except perhaps for a few one-day wildcat walkouts) at that facility in 1967-the most recent strike was in the summer of 1966. BH's false claim could not have been due merely to faulty recollection of a long-past event, because if he had lost money from absenting himself from work (he was paid by the hour), his indignation at that fact would have imprinted itself in his memory.

V. Long published only two details (pp. 363-65) of BH's relatives' suit-descriptions (a dark face and a stench), these being attributes that support BH's description of Patterson's suit. Long would surely have questioned them on all other features of the suit, and printed other supporting details they mentioned. (E.g., a helmet, a glass eye, shoulder pads, a zipper, rubber waders in the legs, latex chest-piece, breasts, etc.) The fact that he didn't is therefore significant. I.e., it suggests those details contradicted BH's tale. (This brings to mind the dog that failed to bark--& thereby spoke volumes.) I suspect the details they recalled match those of the suit GR saw. (These two relatives had hours of unfettered access to the suit while Heironimus slept, and one donned its head.) Incidentally, BH's mom described the suit as "black" (p. 363), at variance with Morris's emphatically non-black "brown" suit (p. 449).

W. In the Jan. 2005 National Geographic special on Bigfoot, BH didn't match Queen Kong's perambulatory style. BH's re-creation failed in two key features: his knee bent only to an angle of 70°, not to QK's 90°, and the sole of his foot was never vertical before its toes left the ground (Bill Miller has mentioned this first), again unlike QK's. (Cf. C. Murphy's book Meet the Sasquatch, p. 52, frames 72 & 310.) It's not easy to incorporate these effects while also walking with QK's compliant gait. If you try, all you'll achieve is a Silly Walk, not a QK re-creation. Your speed and smoothness will be noticeably reduced. But QK walks with the fluidity of a cat.

X. BH's body proportions don't match Queen Kong. E.g., his torso depth, thighs, and shoulder breadth are much slimmer, and yet BH claimed in an interview that no torso padding was used. More important, his torso and arms are proportionately significantly shorter than QK's, and his legs are longer. His intermembral index (ratio of arm length to leg length) is about .70 (human-like); QK's is about .85. And, as John Green has pointed out, no arm extenders were worn, because QK's sharp elbow-bend reveals that her forearm is not disproportionately long.

Y. Such extensive suit modifications would have been necessary to produce a torso, head, and limbs as thick and well-defined as Patty's that an expert tailor and lots of extra fur would have been required. So why bother to buy a suit in the first place?

Z. BH was not measured for a custom-fitted suit. And the Morris's gorilla suit, like all off-the-peg ape-suits, would fit a wearer loosely, even if it had been custom-tailored to the wearer. (E.g., in the movie Harry and the Hendersons, "Harry" has trouser-legs: a pair of uniformly tapering tubes.) Queen Kong, OTOH, has a well-defined body: a butt crack (in the last frames), bulging thunder thighs, mobile kneecap, shapely calf, visible tendons and hamstrings, shoulder blades, realistic biceps, quivering flesh, non-uniform hair color and length, etc., all features missing from Hollywood ape-films. (And the photo on p. 460 of the Morris suit looks like a fright-wig: a comical Abbot-and-Costello affair.)

Conclusion: To swallow Heironimus's story, one must WANT to believe it. Desperately. The rest of us are well justified in being unpersuaded, or even derisive. BH-believers should also reflect on the evidence that is lacking in Long's case, such as:

* Quotes by Patterson or Gimlin even hinting at a Bluff Creek hoax.
* An indication by DeAtley of a specific reason for suspecting a hoax. (His mere belief that Bigfoot can't exist, so it had to be a hoax is insufficient. Indeed, DeAtley's inability to back up that disbelief, despite his close acquaintance with P&G and the film's production, actually argues for the film's authenticity. Long argued that if DeAtley provided specific reasons he would be "risking his reputation" with such a confession (p. 188). But that's silly; he's "confessed" already. As far as the community is concerned, that's what's important-the details are trivial
* A photo (or non-BH testimony) of Patterson (or Gimlin or DeAtley) with a Patty-like suit.
* A zipper pull (or equivalent) in the film-not just seeing Martian canals in the form of ambiguous dark areas at the waist (pp. 378 & 383) and spine (pp. 451-52).
* Indications that the Bluff Creek footprints were mold-made.

Long has objected that his critics haven't disproven the witnesses' testimony about Patterson's character. He's established that Patterson was:

* An occasional moocher and outrageous deadbeat (a person who dishonors his debts), sometimes in a nasty way, as with Vilma Radford.
* A possible sometime-hoaxer of footprints and (maybe) sightings--if one believes Harvey Anderson implicitly, which I don't. (But, even on the evidence selected for inclusion by Long, he was also a sometimes-sincere seeker of prints (p. 120) and sightings. And, after 1967, he spent money searching for hominids in Thailand, and bid on the purported Bossburg Bigfoot body.)
* A would-be hoaxer of an ape-suit film in 1961 (again, according to Anderson). (But, after viewing that effort in private, he never went public with any ape-photo hoaxes, most likely from having come to realize how phony such a re-creation looks. That is a bitter experience that pooh-poohing debunkers lack--but will acquire when BH's costumed, in-motion recreation is broadcast.) (PS from 2007: Guess what, it has been withheld from even DVD distribution, presumably because it's embarrassingly bad, according to a neutral witness of the attempt from National Geographic.)

But again, there is evidence that is lacking in Long's case, such as:

* Testimony indicating that Roger was insincere in his belief in Bigfoot.
* Evidence that Patterson ever promoted a phony ape-suit photo or film as authentic.
* Evidence that Patterson promoted knowingly fraudulent products or projects for money--i.e., scams. Only people who do that are, strictly speaking, con-men. (Trying to sell Bigfoot to Yakima residents, whose attitudes on the big boy ranged from the dubious to the derisive, was an unpromising game-one a true con-man would have avoided. As Charles Mackay wrote back in the 1850s (out of copyright!), "The man who would cheat the people, must needs found his operations upon some prejudice or belief that already exists.")
* Evidence that Patterson's dishonesty was of the mortal-sin, proactive, meat-eating variety, rather than of the venial-sin, opportunistic, grass-eating type (e.g., one-time insurance fraud). Long inaccurately implied he was type-1 (a career criminal), calling him a con-man, etc.

In addition there is evidence (and there would be more in a book less partisan than Long's) that points to Patterson's sincerity and good traits. For sincerity, see pages 46, 49, 88-89, 91-94, 96, 116-18, 129, 131-32, 201, 205, 235, 255, 269-70, 272 & 397. For other good traits, see pages 72, 113, 116, 122, 128-29, 205-06, 228 & 270.

Finally, it's absurd to believe, as Long does, that it is enough to discredit Patterson to disprove the film. He indicated that Patterson and the film are so closely joined that to destroy Patterson's credibility and the film dies, and, that when it comes to the truthfulness of a fantastic story "all other things being equal," the credibility of the story-teller is crucial (p. 430).

But other things are not equal: there was another witness, of excellent character (Gimlin), who has resisted strong provocations by Patterson to expose him; and there is more than a story, there is evidence: the film and the tracks. So readers should not follow Long's specious reasoning. Proving that Patterson was--sometimes--a dodgy dude is not nearly enough, unless one really WANTS to believe Heironimus.

September 18, 2010

When internet posts become dangerous.

Yesterday, after being confronted on the JREF, Kitakaze admits he is has not gone to the police, and now says, "What I am trying to prevent is being stalked."

So, which is it?

He then says this:

What do you mean, "Which is it?" There is only one. I am trying to prevent being stalked. It is happening at its worst by people calling my work looking for my personal contact information. I have recorded the worst stuff on the Internet and made sure that such calls are dealt with properly in the future. I have no specific threat, and everyone I have spoken with personally on the matter has said that the time to involve the police is when an actual threat is made.

So we have gone from specific "I am being stalked," that made Kitakaze fear for his child's safety, to no personal threats made, or evidence Kitakaze IS being "stalked." Kitakaze can't even prove his alleged stalker isn't a crazed fan of his (he is a musician/DJ, you know). So, what proof did he have, when he named me for this "stalking" on the JREF? Apparently none. He just threw it out there, disregarding my right to have these kind of accusations against me - be proven.

What I find funny about all this is,Kitakaze, has used the real names of people (first and last), within this community of bigfooters - on the JREF and other websites, even though their real names have never been used on the JREF before. Kitakaze has outed at least 4 people, on the JREF - and he told them he could because, "They are public figures." He has also been discussing me and my personal life (none of which he has ever asked me about, or is even true) on the JREF for over a year now, and he complains about his "privacy" being violated?

Huh, well guess who else is a public figure, Joshua!! That's right, YOU are. You always have been, as you have had your name out on the internet (for all to read) as you sold your talent on Myspace and Facebook.

You did this to yourself. I would be happy to never type your name, as you do nothing to further this 'bigfoot conversation" one way or the other.

This whole situation is sad. Sad in the respect that there are people who ARE stalked every day in this crazy world we call "the Internet" and in real life. Kitakaze, is taking a very serious situation and turning it into something that he can toss around at will, when he loses a debate.

Kitakaze and his word, have now become something worthy of serious questioning. I know I will never take anything he says at face value, and neither should you. Why should we, when he tells blatant lies and does so to the detriment of others. He also does this with complete and total disregard for the personal safety of others.

How do I know some crazy person wont read his lies, and come after me, thinking they are trying to save kitakaze and his son? That is the fear I expressed to the authorities.

Kitakaze is playing a dangerous game, and people can be hurt by these types of lies. He had better pray nothing happens to me anytime soon.

Now for a bit of honesty. If you really thought this was about stalking - you need to read his posts again. Kitakaze was busted in a lie, accusing Roger Patterson of being convicted of Grand Larceny and Embezzlement - neither charge by Kitakaze was true, and that was proven by me. Instead of Kitakaze doing the right thing, and acknowledging he has made a mistake - he immediately went on the defensive and started throwing around accusations of "Internet stalking."

Kitakaze makes mistakes all the time, and never has the steel to admit it. Instead he goes on these little tirades and screams that he is being mistreated. If you listen to him, and feel sorry for him - I do not feel sorry for you.

Look, if someone is being "stalked" or "harassed" whether it be the Internet or in real life, it is a serious situation and not something to be thrown around at will. Which is exactly why I took the steps I took. This is not a game to me, as such I did what was right and appropriate. You should always take the necessary steps to protect yourself. Don't follow kitakaze's example.

Kitakaze has now decided to turn his focus off me, and start accusing others, by demanding privileged information from my Administrative Staff at the SFB.

Easy, John. I want to protect everything close to me. You are admin of that forum. That BlackScope person is clearly stalking. As a forum admin, I ask you to give me her/his IP address so I can give it to the police here. This has gone way overboard. Will you cooperate?

So, now Kitakaze is asking people to break the law for him? Ain't gonna happen.

IP addresses are private and protected pieces of information, and can only be given out, when/IF I am served a warrant, or if law enforcement delivers a warrant to my hosting company. None of which has happened.

You are burying yourself in a deep hole of trouble Joshua - you are not entitled to any information that is not public. FYI Kitakaze, why would you need an IP address to file a report? No one over the last week asked me for your IP address (and I do have it, duh), and I was still allowed to file a report. Your full name was sufficient, as one of the law enforcement officials was able to find you by simply googling "djKitakaze" as I told him to. So, when you tell members of my staff, you need an IP to file a report - that is another lie.

Oh, and Apology - Kitakaze's biggest defender, you apparently do not know your law. Study up, before you continue to give advice you are not (obviously) qualified to give.

Pay particular attention to the part where it says "Harass or intimidate." I usually stay out of things I am not qualified to discuss, and Apology, you were nowhere around during my conversations with the authorities so, you do not know what type of reports I HAVE filed. I would mind my own business if I were you.

Who's privacy is Kitakaze trying to invade? Why is it okay for Kitakaze to attempt to collect private information that is not public in any way?

Why is Kitakaze entitled to information, he feels no one should have about him? I do (however) thank you (kitakaze, and the JREF Administrative team)for making all this public. I have downloaded Joshua's most recent thread, with his comments asking my admin to break the law, and invade the privacy of a member of my board.

I also have other various tid bits to pass on as well.

Your lie is over Joshua. You have been busted. Shame on you for taking such a serious issue and trying to get sympathy. Sympathy you do not deserve, because you are a liar and a drama queen. I am just grateful you feel the need to type so much. It makes my life easier, and that of law enforcement.

It does make sense that, Kitakaze, would remain at the JREF making his false accusations, as he can get away with it there, and no one else is allowing him to spread his lies. For that I am grateful. Which (in all honesty) makes the bigfoot sites, more credible than the JREF - who says they offer "critical thinking".. LOL.

Wow, what a whopper of a lie that is. They sure do use the words, "critical thinking," but when you take a deeper look, there is really very little actual thinking involved. Especially in this situation - it's blind faith that their little buddy, Kitakaze, is telling them the truth, even though he now admits, he was not being honest. Joke is on them. Question is, will they finally do the right thing, and question Kitakaze and his lie, or will the JREF'ers that defend Kitakaze, finally tell him they are tired of his lies and games.

Crying wolf and making false accusations aganst people for attention, does not make you a credible person, Joshua, think on that a little.

When the word, "farce" was thrown at Kitakaze to describe his allegations, that was a good word. Bravo!!!

September 17, 2010

Kitakaze and his "Accusations"


As of today, I took the final steps of filling a complete report with my local authorities, and now that makes two (2) agencies, Local and Federal that are aware of this situation. Two is always better than one.

I have submitted documents (as was requested) of all the information as well, to include print outs from the JREF, of complete threads and personal conversations sent to me (after requesting Kitakaze have no further contact). Everything I could think of was downloaded and printed out, and turned over.

Making a public accusation of stalking or internet harassment is a serious charge, and if Kitakaze is unwilling to handle this situation, I will take care of it myself. Which is exactly what I did.

I want to thank all those who have been very supportive and understanding during this ordeal over the last week. You have no idea how much it means, to know, there are people out there who care about you as a person, and feel it necessary to step forward and offer support. It's times like this, you KNOW who your friends are, and my group of friends became much larger this week. I appreciate each and every one of you.

I have been the subject of many such type of "internet personalities" over the years. It ENDS now. I will no longer tolerate actions like this from anyone within this community or outside of it. I understand my rights, and I will not sit back and quietly allow someone to make false accusations against me via an anonymous internet name, any longer.

I have been dealing with Kitakaze for well over two years now, and this is the truth he is not discussing. Of course he won't tell you the lengths he has gone to try and find out my location and personal contact information. It has also come to my attention (and made the police officer I spoke with today very interested) he is trying to gain the IP information of members (of the SFB Message board) from the Admin of my board.

That is a violation of privacy. That information is protected under the law. I can’t even give out that information without being served a warrant by Law Enforcement officials.

What makes Kitakaze think he is entitled to information police can't even have without going through the proper channels? He does not need that information in order to file a report (as he claims). Again, another lie he is telling.

To date, Kitakaze has not filed a police report, he has done nothing, that proves to me, nothing of what he says is legit.

Instead he is posting on message boards and trying to get information on me and others on my website. Even though he says he is worried about the safety of his child. If I were being stalked, and frightened as Kitakaze claims to be, child or not, I would be at the police station... IMMEDIATELY.

Wait, I did that.

I am now done with this, and will let the legal machine do its thing.

Again, thank you to all my friends, and the readers of this Blog who offered their support and friendship. Both myself and Wayne appreciate each and every one of you.

September 15, 2010

When your lies catch up with you,

Someone is gonna notice.

I just had to post this photo again with this story, as now it has more meaning than ever.

Kitakaze sent a pm yesterday to two moderators of a bigfoot website complaining about me. He took this complaint and posted it to the JREF. I will not post it here, as that is redundant, but there are links in this article with some very INTERESTING proof that Kitakaze is a liar, and he knew he was lieing when he wrote a Personal Message yesterday expecting I would be punished for posting an article about him on this blog.

In this personal message complaint, Kitakaze accuses me of stalking him, and asking bigfooters to stalk him for information. Below you will see a link to my website where I have this personal message posted outlining his grievances against me, and his threat to have police sent to my home - if his information is not removed. (Information being a myspace link posted by a reader of my blog, not me personally).

You can simply follow this LINK and read how Kitakaze was really "outed" in the Bigfoot Community.

If you don't feel like clicking the links, I am supplying them below:

This links shows the top of the archived forum conversation, which is most likely how information on who kitakaze was, got out.

This next image is the post that started the ball rolling.

Now, we have the outing of kitakaze's facebook page.

And finally, we have Kitakaze, who comes along and is so grateful for the attention, he discusses the fact that he has a myspace page.

No where in this thread will you read Kitakaze being upset that his information is now public. Read it for yourself. Does he appear upset, or grateful for the kudos and attention?

It wasnt me.. I didn't even know this information existed until today (Thank you Dr. Onion).

By the way, Kitakaze, if you want to continue spreading rumors, inuendo and outright lies about me, you better make sure they are true - this one, really makes you look like the person you SAY you are not, but many of us know you are.

You did this to yourself, and as such - you only have yourself to blame. Funny how you didnt complain when you were the subject of hugs and kisses, from the very people, on the JREF you say detest. You were taken in by the "publicity" you so desperately crave (and ridicule other for), and you allowed yourself to be "outed publicly." No wonder people have known so much about you - long before I did. Duh. I hadn't even thought about looking on the BFF. I didn't even think you were dumb enough to post your personal info on a bigfoot message board... How dumb.

Get your information right, and you wont be the subject of this blog..

Why should any bigfooter listen to a thing you say, when you make up such slanderous allegations about people? I wouldn't trust you past my front door.

September 14, 2010

Roger Patterson, an Embezzler??

That's what Kitakaze said. Then, kinda walked back his comments on a message board, but not really as strongly as he should have. He has been asked to provide the actual documentation to prove his allegations of Embezzlement and Grand Larceny, but has instead chosen to post on the message board where he was asked to do so.. Not post the information which proves his claim, just cutsie little comments, and defending his position.

Here is the truth folks.

Taken from Greg Long's book, page 304. The following image is a photo taken of the bottom of page 304

The following image shows the entire page 304 of Greg Long's book.

This is a letter written by Vilma Radford. Vilma tells Greg Long, she sent this letter to Roger Patterson. These kinds of letters are what is called, "Demand for Payment" letters. They are very common when trying to execute the terms of a contract, or in an attempt to collect a debt (debt collectors). "Demand for payment letters can be written by anyone who is owed money.

Please note in the close up image, at the bottom of the page, Greg Long inserts his own wording:

"Copy of note dated, December 29, 1967, to Roger Patterson from Vilma Radford threatening legal action for breach of contract."

Breach of Contract and Embezzlement are in different leagues all together. A suit for Breach of Contract is not handled in the criminal courts, this is a civil matter. Embezzlement is a criminal matter, and most often you are charged with a felony and sent to prison. There are no "fines" involved with a "Breach of Contract" suit, and Roger Patterson would not even have to show up for such a matter, if he agreed with Vilma that he owed her the money.

If you have a suit brought against you for "Breach of Contract," and you "fail to appear" the judge simply enters what is called a "default judgment" - basically, your failure to appear (in court) and defend yourself against the action means you are saying, "I owe the money." Had Roger Patterson shown up that day, to defend himself against this action, Vilma Radford's attorney fees would have been much higher than what she did end up paying out. The only thing I am curious about at this point is why the judge didn't order a seperate judgment (from the $999.00) for attorney fees.. That is curious to me, as the contract between Vilma and Patterson, calls for Patterson to pay attorney fees.

But, this is not a criminal matter, and it is not correct at all to call this particular case "Embezzlement," as I said two very different ball games entirely.

I also found the arrest warrant for Roger Patterson on charges of "Grand Larceny" on page 168 of Greg Long's book. As far as I am concerned however, this is a non-issue, as it has been said the charges were dropped. There was not even a trial. The only way we will know why the charges were dropped is to get the Court Transcripts, the reason may be in there.

In this country we are, "Innocent until Proven guilty." Whether you like Roger Patterson or not, he is still entitled to his day, the District Attorney in this case, made the decision to drop, therefore Roger Patterson never even seen trial. We can speculate all we want as to, "Why?" But, unless we have the court transcripts, that is all it is. Even if we can get the transcripts and find out why the case was dropped, it STILL does not make Roger Patterson guilty of a Felony. You can think he is a bad person, but your "feelings" do not make it so. We are not the judge and jury of Roger Patterson.

We should be careful when discussing issues such as this, to be certain our comments and accusations are correct. Kitakaze blew it big time on this one, and for his sake I hope Roger Patterson's widow doesn't catch wind of this ... or for that matter, her Attorney.

Just thought I would share this with you. Have a great day everyone.

*Disclaimer: The comments above are not legal advice, and should not be taken as such. If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney.*

September 13, 2010

Kitakaze and his PGF Documentary

This area of the Searchforbigfoot is open to the public for reading, as always.

Here is the other side of the story, you won't hear from Kitakaze on any forum discussing Bigfoot. Find out what he really thinks of YOU as a bigfoot researcher:

and how that attitude has changed (in public) because he needs your help to film a documentary for the Discovery Channel in Canada.

Kitakaze throws around wild unproven allegations, inuendo, and accuses Roger Patterson of things to include Grand Larceny and Embezzlement. Is any of this true?


Yet, he is out there spewing this for the entire world to read. Any attempt to set the record straight - is met with name calling by Kitakaze, in an attempt to shut people up.

Has he discussed the "many stories" given by Bob Heronimus, which change whenever he is confronted with his mistakes? Nope, and I bet Kitkaze won't either.

Read both sides of this issue, and join in the discussion. Find out what his agenda really is, not what he tells you.

Being a public figure is one thing, making gross accusations with nothing to support those allegations is simply WRONG.

So far the information provided simply glosses over the parts Kitakaze does not like, and he focuses on what his "perception" of the truth really is. Most of what he discusses, comes straight from Greg Long's book. Is he working with Greg Long? Even most skeptics agree Greg Long made some huge errors, yet Kitakaze uses this book as a reference, a guide if you will.

There are two sides to every story. I have no dog in the PGF race. But, I can not sit back and idly allow someone to spread lies and gossip, as the truth. It could be your reputation on the line next.

Do you find that acceptable? I sure don't.