Jump to content
kitakaze

Where Are The Reports Matching The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

Guest gershake

There doesn't seem to be anyway to rationalize that Patty is any sort of human.

...Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wookie73

Well, the arguments I have read on here in favor of the PGF have all pointed towards primate anatomy. (the line down the back, butt size and shape, long arms...etc) That doesn't jive with a Homo type of body structure. Nor does the heaviness of the torso compared to the height. These are all distinctly great ape type of features. (yes I know man is also a great ape, but I'm referring to Gorillas and Chimps).

It seems a tall order to say Patty is a Homo rather than some other sort of great ape, if it is indeed real. If Ketchum's results say not just a Homonid but a Homo sapien bigfooti (which would make it a modern human sub-species) I would find the anatomy of Patty to be impossibly sub-specific human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Well, the arguments I have read on here in favor of the PGF have all pointed towards primate anatomy. (the line down the back, butt size and shape, long arms...etc) That doesn't jive with a Homo type of body structure. Nor does the heaviness of the torso compared to the height. These are all distinctly great ape type of features. (yes I know man is also a great ape, but I'm referring to Gorillas and Chimps).

It seems a tall order to say Patty is a Homo rather than some other sort of great ape, if it is indeed real. If Ketchum's results say not just a Homonid but a Homo sapien bigfooti (which would make it a modern human sub-species) I would find the anatomy of Patty to be impossibly sub-specific human.

It will be interesting then to see what pans out with the Ketchum report. If it sees the light of day. If the associated videos of the sleeping sasquatch ever are revealed, stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wookie73

Indeed, tho I'm skeptical of Bigfoot now, I used to be a huge believer and I would be very excited for the evidence to turn out to be on the level!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well, the arguments I have read on here in favor of the PGF have all pointed towards primate anatomy. (the line down the back, butt size and shape, long arms...etc) That doesn't jive with a Homo type of body structure. Nor does the heaviness of the torso compared to the height. These are all distinctly great ape type of features. (yes I know man is also a great ape, but I'm referring to Gorillas and Chimps).

It seems a tall order to say Patty is a Homo rather than some other sort of great ape, if it is indeed real. If Ketchum's results say not just a Homonid but a Homo sapien bigfooti (which would make it a modern human sub-species) I would find the anatomy of Patty to be impossibly sub-specific human.

I don't think that "Patty" is very different from human really. Especially since I think it's plausibly a man in costume. Of course, I think "Patty" may be bulked out with cushioning. I've met people with a large body versus size of legs. And the limb proportions don't seem out of the human pale to me. Even the size of the butt isn't really out of human range. If "Patty" is closely related to human I would expect a good deal of similarity between us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Indeed, tho I'm skeptical of Bigfoot now, I used to be a huge believer and I would be very excited for the evidence to turn out to be on the level!!!

For me, the worst part about bigfootery is the mystery. Some people seem to enjoy the mystery, not me. If it exists, I want to know about it and I want to see it. If it doesn't exist, I want it exposed and the book closed on the arguing about it. The more time goes by without a discovery, without anything to confirm reality, reality seems less and less likely. The forests aren't like the deep, forbidding depths of the ocean. They are reachable, have been reached, have been hiked, climbed, driven, flown over, logged, hunted, explored, even a lot of bigfoot expeditions have been waged against the forests. And still nothing of substance. If they exist, where are they? How can they come down into inhabited areas, yet still not get caught? Part of the problem I have with the whole PGf situation is that so many people want to use it as proof of the existence of bigfoot, but one film of dubious quality, detail and what it actually represents does not constitute proof. If Patty made some crazy leap, swung into the trees, caught a deer, did ANYTHING uniquely improbable or impossible for a human to do, then yeah, there'd be some leverage, but doing nothing other than walking along, no climbs, no descents, just a fairly straight stroll, does not show unique and proof-worthy evidence. Without a second individual showing up since, it's questionable at best. It's far easier to become skeptical than to remain a believer when nothing new has come along in 44 years to back up the film as being of a real entity. And the longer it goes, the more belief becomes eroded...

And so, the Ketchum report may be something very interesting, if it does in fact show up. I have my doubts that it will. The dog might eat the homework before it becomes public!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Some dog evidently did eat all solid indications that the PGf could even possibly have been hoaxed. That's sort of the kicker for me (other than the continual stream of credible witnesses). : B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Some dog evidently did eat all solid indications that the PGf could even possibly have been hoaxed. That's sort of the kicker for me (other than the continual stream of credible witnesses). : B

Solid indications? Such as?

Credible, intelligent, objective observations of the film itself can just as easily "conclude" that the subject in the film could be a human in a suit, every bit as easily as anyone else could make the case that it could not be a human in a suit. That fact alone carries an awful lot of weight when one considers for themselves what to "believe". Those things are facts, not simply opinions. Credible arguments can be made easily in favor of Patty being a person in a suit. Just because you believe it's real doesn't negate the weight nor the power of those arguments. So when you say something as profound as "all solid indications that the PGf could even possibly have been hoaxed", it only shows your bias as well as your refusal to see the bigger picture.

Say you have one, two, maybe three Hollywood costume designers that are of the opinion that Patty is real, and could not possibly be a person in a suit. That's good support for your belief. Say then that you have two or three or more times that many that say just the opposite, that it not only could be a person in a suit, but clearly looks to them just like a person in a suit, with these certain telltale clues visible in the film. That's good undermining for your belief, but you ignore what you don't want to hear, what you don't want to agree with. You only accept the opinions that fit within your own particular bias, and reject everything else. That in itself undermines your claim that "all solid indications", because you won't even consider solid indications that conflict with your beliefs.

The question was asked elsewhere, what would happen if Gimlin confessed, or if "the suit" was found. If there was no possible way that was a hoax, and prof showed up it was a hoax, then where does that leave all this absolute, positive, without a doubt proof it was real? Denial does not constitute proof.

It's always claimed that the skeptics have to be wrong because their stories are always too complex, and the simplest story should win out. A simple story could be, Patterson was obsessed about bigfoot, there was a clear movement going on, so he wanted to tap into it somehow. He decided to buy a suit, modify it to fit a buddy, he padded it up, shot a simple, brief segment of minimal action, and bam, there he had his legacy. How much simpler can it get than that? Bought a suit, modified it to fit his vision, filmed a buddy walking the walk, and that's it. Nobody ever filmed one before, nor since, and not a single body shows up. Sounds simple. People get on the bandwagon of hoaxing all over the country, just like crop circles, and still nothing ever shows up of consequence.

So saying there's no way it could be a hoax is wishful thinking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Tontar wrote:

Part of the problem I have with the whole PGf situation is that so many people want to use it as proof of the existence of bigfoot, but one film of dubious quality, detail and what it actually represents does not constitute proof.

Patty's 100% Natural hand/finger movement...

PattyFingerBendingAG7.gif

Patty's fingers repeat this pattern of curling and straightening...(relaxing/curling in the forward-half of the arm swing...and straightening in the backward-half of the swing)....over multiple steps....possibly with every step she takes.

On the other hand....100% Natural rigid Suit Hands...

ArmExtensions5.jpg

F302-F303AG1.gif

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Patty's 100% Natural hand/finger movement...

PattyFingerBendingAG7.gif

Patty's fingers repeat this pattern of curling and straightening...(relaxing/curling in the forward-half of the arm swing...and straightening in the backward-half of the swing)....over multiple steps....possibly with every step she takes.

That's right, with every single swing of her arms, the hands repeat this same elongating and foreshortening crescent shape. Not once do they change this pattern. Why? Don';t know, but it does not mean that the hands are actually curling and uncurling, in fact it could simply be because when the arm has swung forward, we can see the cupping of the hand from a perspective of looking down the arm, into the cupped hand, which would naturally make the length of the hand look shorter, or more cupped, more curled. Conversely, with the arm fully by the side, hanging down perpendicular to the camera, we see the hand at full length, from the side, and as such the hand will look less curled. You can simulate that very effect with a rigid, non-flexing prop. As the hand continues to do this same thing on every swing of the arm, we have reinforcement that the hand might very well be rigid and not flexible, that the curling and uncurling of the fingers is simply an optical illusion due to the varying angle the hand is viewed. Or, alternately, that the hand may still be organic, but still hanging relaxed and doing nothing more than swinging to and fro. Either way, it appears that there is little to no actual curling or uncurling of the fingers in the above gig animations, and that the effect is simply one of moving a curved hand forward and back on an oblique plane.

Like the tire graphic below. Obviously the tire is not curling nor uncurling, it retains it's fixed curvature, but it appears to curve much more tightly when viewed from an oblique angle. Like the tire turning at an angle to the viewer, Patty's hand does the same thing, creating the illusion of finger movement. Patty's fingers may not be moving at all, and so using such an animation, or claiming that they do in fact move (when it is just as likely they are not moving), is building a case where one does not exist. Like most if not all of the Sweaty animations, much ado is made out of little to nothing concrete.

By the way, in your animation above, why is Patty's deltoid hanging so far down the back of her arm?

post-1023-010744300 1328577731_thumb.jpg

Edited by Tontar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Some dog evidently did eat all solid indications that the PGf could even possibly have been hoaxed.

It must have been White Lady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Tontar wrote:

"That's right, with every single swing of her arms, the hands repeat this same elongating and foreshortening crescent shape. Not once do they change this pattern. Why? Don';t know,..."

Wrong... :) ....the finger pattern does change...with the arm in the same position...

handmove2ag.gif

And, try making your car tire do this...with almost no change in 'angle-of-view'...

F302-F303AG1.gif

Additionally....your tire is irrelevant due to the fact that the bend in Patty's hand/fingers changes in a way that cannot happen due to 'perspective' alone. The contour of the hand has one additional clear bend in it...in the forward-half of the arm swing...

PattyFingersBendingComp1.jpg

Patty bends her fingers...and her hand bends at the 'apparent wrist joint'....with exceptionally long arms.

And Bob Heironimus has never said ONE WORD about this "feature of the suit".

Not a single word. :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Tontar wrote:

"That's right, with every single swing of her arms, the hands repeat this same elongating and foreshortening crescent shape. Not once do they change this pattern. Why? Don';t know,..."

Wrong... :) ....the finger pattern does change...with the arm in the same position...

handmove2ag.gif

And, try making your car tire do this...with almost no change in 'angle-of-view'...

F302-F303AG1.gif

Additionally....your tire is irrelevant due to the fact that the bend in Patty's hand/fingers changes in a way that cannot happen due to 'perspective' alone. The contour of the hand has one additional clear bend in it...in the forward-half of the arm swing...

PattyFingersBendingComp1.jpg

Patty bends her fingers...and her hand bends at the 'apparent wrist joint'....with exceptionally long arms.

And Bob Heironimus has never said ONE WORD about this "feature of the suit".

Not a single word. :)

Sorry, background blobs of highlights and lowlights renders your animations complete junk. Floppy wrists are not indicative of authentic biology, for crying out loud. You always look for the most remedial bits of information to "prove" Patty is the real deal. A Pinochio doll has floppy wrists. People have floppy wrists. Gloves have floppy wrists.

But just to humor you so you keep the simple animations coming, it's not impossible for Patty's fingers to be clenching or unclenching, but so what? Bob H.. or you, or XS can bend your fingers, right? Why not Patty? The hands fall at exactly the correct position for them to be real hands, with no arm extensions, since the arms are of the same length and proportion as a human's arms. Why wouldn't a person in a suit be able to work their own fingers? Check Patty's elbow location in your animation, it seems to contradict your other animations significantly. You post an animation to show the elbow point being really low, and something about the thigh shows up poorly. You post an animation to fix the bad press you introduced on the thigh, and something bad shows up on the hands, You post a video to fix the bad press you introduced about the hands, and that invalidates the animation you posted about the elbow. Each and every one of those animations shows just how closely the proportions are to a real human, as well as several curiously problematic bits and pieces of skin, fur, or whatever that insinuates a suit..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Tontar wrote:

"The hands fall at exactly the correct position for them to be real hands, with no arm extensions, since the arms are of the same length and proportion as a human's arms..."

OOPS....you blew another tire, Tontar... :lol: ...

PattyFingerBend-BobCompAG1Lined.gif

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...