Bonehead74 Posted October 21 Posted October 21 Interesting video recreating the PGF location. https://youtu.be/I6I2SpixPv0?si=CKxDjpzqKWPw8w_2 1 1
cromag Posted October 21 Posted October 21 I just watched that earlier.....kinda surprised how wide open it was. From the filming angle the trees, shrubs looked a bit more dense. Really cool recreation! 1
Northern Lights Posted October 22 Posted October 22 Um, this video has really challenged some of my very ingrained biases and I'm not quite sure how I fell about it. The last few minutes talks about the IM index and I've been under the impression that Patty was way outside of the human range, only to hear that based on this video, she is well within human range. Additionally, they seem to almost gloss over that particular revelation like it is no big deal. I need to noodle on this for a while. Interesting.
Patterson-Gimlin Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Thank you very much for sharing. A six foot human proportional film subject does not diminish the complexity of the aledged suit.
idlehour30 Posted October 23 Posted October 23 7 hours ago, Northern Lights said: Um, this video has really challenged some of my very ingrained biases and I'm not quite sure how I fell about it. The last few minutes talks about the IM index and I've been under the impression that Patty was way outside of the human range, only to hear that based on this video, she is well within human range. Additionally, they seem to almost gloss over that particular revelation like it is no big deal. I need to noodle on this for a while. Interesting. It's maybe less interesting than it first appears. It's posted by a channel called Lazy Cowboy whose entire reason for being seems to be to debunk the PGF. Take a look at some of his other videos. He's basically the anti-ThinkerThunker, where he attempts to pour scorn on TT's findings by - ironically I assume - using the same flawed methods. He tries to prove that upper arm proportions can be made bigger with football shoulder pads by drawing massive dots on the joints and connecting with lines. It's all pretty dumb. I need to watch this a few times, but there is an air of respectability about this which tries to disguise the sweeping conclusions they are jumping to - it's quite unnerving. They toss in buzzwords like Lidar, but there seems no scientifically calibrated way this was interpreted, used and adapted. It's all a bit smoke and mirrors. I posted in a different thread how I think their height is wrong. How they think they deduce it was a smooth sandy surface without obstructions nearly 60 years ago, based mostly on a single photo from years later escapes me. I'll do a proper review in due course, but I'm not fooled by the veneer. 2
Doug Posted October 23 Posted October 23 I believe they put the elbow on the model in the wrong place. I too, felt that in at least the body measurement section was eluding to a more human range Patty, however, I did enjoy the recreation of the site.
xspider1 Posted October 23 Posted October 23 Thanks for sharing that, Bonehead74. It’s an interesting and sophisticated presentation. However, I too feel like they glossed over several of the most important points. Like how they determined an exact? height of 6’ based on shadows?, how they decided that the trackway was flat and free of any obstructions?? And, the IM thing. Their digital representation of Patty is cool, it just doesn’t seem as accurate as perhaps they think it is..
idlehour30 Posted October 23 Posted October 23 I also like the part where they strip away the skin of Patty to reveal muscle, flab, bone etc. They notably don't include Bob's jeans and wallet, waders and huge amounts of padding Also - the model of Patty used. They're accurate here too in the heavily sloping cranium after the brow ridge. As with all realistic ape costumes, there's no place for Bob's big ol' forehead and cranial cavity, let alone the football helmet. With a perfectly proportioned head section, there's simply no space for Bob or any other human in there.
Backdoc Posted October 23 Posted October 23 ^^^ When is comes to size there are a few considerations: Even if someone is "Big" big was less common in 1967 vs today. Someone can be 6 foot tall and BULKY. Gimlin states how Massive Bigfoot (Patty) was. Someone can look massive and still be only 6 feet tall. Patty looks at least as big to me as the 335 lb tackle in the above pic who is 6'4'' tall. This is why I don't need Patty to be 7.5 ft tall. Those who do I think do so because if they can show Paty is way outside typical human range it would prove Patty has to be real. If Patty is only 6' tall I am fine with that. I would just eyeball the idea Patty is about the size of 6'5'' Jim McClarin. Patty is bent forward when walking and knees bent. They are not always walking the same exact path but at times look near to each other. I could be just fine with putting patty no more that 6' 5" tall. I have no proof either way. She could be 6' or 6' 1'' Yet, she is "Massive" We don't need Patty to be Andre the Giant. People were not as large in the 1960's There were fewer Fat people back then.
Recommended Posts