Forums

That's not the case, Rockstar.  The PGF subject cannot be replicated via a 'man in a suit'....regardless of what material/mechanization, or hair is used.   A couple of aspects of Patty, which cannot be replicated...   It's 'arm proportion', for one...       Breaking that animation into two halves.....note the exceptionally-long upper-arm...along with the relatively short forearm, which clearly does not include the use of an 'arm extension'...   ...     Expanding on that detail....without the use of 'arm/hand extensions', within which to hide the subject's true wrist and finger joints....the clearly visible wrist and finger bending must then be occurring at the film subject's actual skeletal joints.  (I won't bother posting the images/animations showing the wrist and finger-joint movements, right now.)     There are several other aspects of Patty which cannot be replicated...but, for now.....just one other detail would be it's feet...   I told Huntster I would re-post these images of Patty's foot....showing the "elaborate"....(in the case of a costume)….and very realistic aspect of the toes on her right foot. They appear as two different lengths....depending on which side of the foot they're being viewed from...and their state...(lifted vs. relaxed)...       I will be posting more on that particular detail...including an attempt at re-creating it via a 'costume foot'.  The physical experiment will demonstrate how utterly ridiculous the notion of building such a detail into a suit would be....(if anyone had even ever had such a thought, in their head).    There are additional aspects of Patty which cannot be replicated via this basic method...(wrapping humans in shag carpeting)...     ....even given lots of time, and money....but I won't post them all, right now.              

^ Agreed.  And, trying to work from a predetermined notion backwards is exactly what has hampered many, many people from seeing the truth for eons.  I do not pretend to know what Patty is, but it should be obvious to anyone not in denial that she cannot be explained with a costume. 

I thought that I would post some low tech stuff because I am tired of the pseudo-squatch logging operation that is now 6 pages. BTW, shallow root ball trees fall over in wind storms. I am around a lot of trees that have shallow root balls. Dangerous in wind storms.  DDA had trail cameras on trees and the trees were pushed over from the non-cam side. Cryptic message ---- no translation needed.  I think the trees were alders.   I found my  animal scat and track guides that are available from North Woods  Field Guides. They don't include everything but they will help.   http://www.northwoodsguides.com   Beaver scat is easy when seen in shallow water. How are you on dog and coyote tracks?  Other animals;  claws in or claws out?   For the image, I took the cards off of the little ball chain. You can adjust the pack to your liking. The image does not show all cards that come in the packs. You have separate packs;  scat and tracks.

But unlike physics? Biology requires a type specimen.   What many don’t realize is that Squatchy is working backwards.   In his world? Apemen do NOT exist! So of course he is looking to poke holes in the film subject. Even if the comparisons are weak sauce. Its a fake. It has to be!   I just look at the film based on its own merits. If it looked like the Heronimous film? I would think it was a fake too.    

You miss the key and  fundamental issue. Patty may be able to be replicated today with today's materials and mechanization and hair. But for an uneducated cowboy in 1967 with no costume experience and no money to create that film that when analyzed with technology 50 years later and there is still no smoking gun of fakery is an accomplishment. Patterson could have filmed the fake creature moving between trees at a distance. Did he? No. He filmed, according to you, a man in a 1967 monkey suit, up close, in clear view, and even capturing he face and muscle movement all while moving very gracefully. Can you imagine a man in a monkey suit with football padding and pillows stuffed into it moving so fluidly and not one time breaking stride even for one movement of the legs and arms? The man/creature moved flawlessly for a long long distance. A man in an unforgiving monkey suit, with sticks in his hands ( per bob h) and pillows and football equipment moved that flawlessly over rough terrain?    Bob H and his accomplice who made the suit cannot replicate it.   No one has replicated it. I have been waiting decades for someone to use 60s materials and replicate it. It hasn't happened.   At least with ufos, people show how to create fakes. With PGF there is no replication. The one with bob h in a monkey suit makes me chuckle. You can see the pant legs buckling and wrinkling. With patty, you see skin and hair pulled over muscles.    So the man who made the suit can't make another. The man who wore the suit can't replicate the movement.   In physics, I am a physicst, textbooks and classes and publications are created on not one quarter of the evidence in the pg film.