Jump to content
kitakaze

Where Are The Reports Matching The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

Guest Primate

I agree MikeG

Still , the feet ,knees ,hips and spine clearly don't match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Just to say for the umpteenth time not all who defend the PGF necessarily "believe". I consider myself a very objective person and i am unconvinced by many of the arguements from both sides. It is not clear cut either way for me. I do believe that many of the skeptics here come from a pov that no bf exists so therefore the pgf is fake and anything that might suggest otherwise is just believers putting the blinders on because they just want to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wookie73

To be skeptical is to question and not accept at face value pretty much everything. I have no idea if there is a Bigfoot, the concrete evidence that exists so far is not very convincing. The number of reports , though compelling to an extent, could possibly be mistaken identity, hallucinations, seeing things in the dark and scary places at night and/or just made up completely. The lack of decent clear photographs also don't help the cause.

IMO, there are so many things about the PGF that look very human and fit within human ranges that a man in a suit cannot be ruled out. The rather "colorful" history of Patterson doesn't help the case for a real bigfoot either. he has a history of ripping other peopl off and was not exactly a reliable witness.

I am of the opinion that if one were to have a formal,courtroom style debate about it, mock trial style, I don't think you could convict the PGF of being a real Bigfoot.

Edited by Wookie73
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Wookie, generally I agree. One of my biggest issues with considering the pgf real is the fact that nothing like it has happened again. But i do consider the possibility tha Patty was one of the last of her kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Wookie, generally I agree. One of my biggest issues with considering the pgf real is the fact that nothing like it has happened again. But i do consider the possibility tha Patty was one of the last of her kind.

Thickfoot vs Bigfootery...

"The Harley Hoffman Film": Teetering On the Edge Of Credibility And Incredibility

By James Alex Gerard

I've seen a number of films -- supposedly showing actual Bigfoot subjects -- come and go over the years. Most are downright laughable, obvious hoax attempts. But in my studies of such films, I recently came upon one that I considered unique.

I could find little information about it, except that it was attributed to one Harley Hoffman, and was taken in 2001 in British Columbia. The clearest video clip I found was posted here:

In my view, this film teeters on the edge of credibility and incredibility. First of all, I'll say that if that's a costume, it's a rather detailed one. Although the subject stays in frame only briefly, I note its apparent size -- mainly height and broadness -- compared with the surrounding environment. It has some scale to it, and I can tell it's big -- whatever it is.

If it's a person in a costume, it's a large person who's unusually wide, or the outfit itself has outstanding bulk. And I perceive a degree of musculature in the subject's shoulder and upper-back movements.

I also note the apparent patchy fur, and it's dark -- basically black -- coloration. Costumed hoaxers I've seen employ outfits with uniformed, even-distributed body hair or fur coverings. In addition, Bigfoot costumes I've seen use a brown color scheme, although the Halloween-type Gorilla novelty suits tend to be ebony in color. But the subject in "The Hoffman Film" sure doesn't look like any stock Halloween-type costume I've seen.

That suggests that modifications would be required to make it appear more credible, and I have my doubts that's what I'm seeing there. Also, the subject appears to have some sort of obtrusion on its upper back, from what I see. It resembles those square, padded neck and head protectors I've seen football players wear. Or maybe it's just my failing eyesight in my middle age, or some effect from the dark subject area -- or the lighting itself.

I'll say that the subject I see in this video bears a remarkable similarity to the subject I see in the Patterson-Gimlin film. It appears these two subjects are physically related, as it refers to a common ancestry or genetic background. And I do not feel it's case of reverse engineering by the costume-maker -- if it's such.

Considering the videos of supposed Bigfoot I've seen, it's only "The Hoffman Film" that comes close to having that same measure of "Boy, that looks like a real one" that I feel marks the subject seen in the 1967 film.

http://bigfootfiles....ng-on-edge.html

Harley Hoffman Bigfoot Film Shows Detail Of A Possible Sasquatch

Note spine and deltoid detail

The Harley Hoffman Bigfoot film shows detail uncommon in most fake Bigfoot hoax films. It was shot in British Columbia in 2001 under unknown circumstances. That seems to be the biggest problem with this film.

Hoffman has not spoken publicly since he shot the film and we know little about him. He and his brother seem to be more eccentric then Todd Standing. For example, Haley's brother once had a website trying to prove the existence of Santa Claus! This is all strange, except this film.

The quality and resolution is outstanding, and not your garden variety blobsquatch. Features of hair length and color are visible on this video. Why would cheap hoaxers be concerned with such detail similar to the Patterson film

This film has detail and it is very similar to the Patterson Gimlim Film. The major detail of the film that has always convinced me of it possibly being real is the width of the back with deltoids and triceps definition and a clear spine seen on the back. I will let the images and video demonstrate this.

This is not a cheap monkey suit. If all they wanted was a few seconds of video to hoax, there is way too much going on here for their basic needs.

The only drawback here is the strange behaviour of the people involved. Film seems to be edited and I would like to know where it was shot and see the entire video unedited.

http://www.bigfootre...film-shows.html

The Harley Hoffman Bigfoot video is a rather famous clip that has been hailed as one of the best Bigfoot films since the Patterson-Gimlin film. It has been put up to great scrutiny, as many “experts†have dismissed it as a man in a gorilla suit. The researchers at Bigfoot Finder have decided to put the footage up to our expert analysis.

THE FACTS:

This video was shot in British Columbia in 2001 by Harley Hoffman, the man speaking in the film.

Since its release in 2001, Harley Hoffman has not spoken publicly about the film.

Harley’s brother, Hutch Hoffman, supposedly ran a site called searchforsanta.com, which is set on proving that Santa Clause is real.

BIGFOOT FINDER’S EXPERT ANALYSIS:

This is obviously one of the most clear and sharpest videos of Bigfoot since the Patterson-Gimlin film, to which it has drawn many comparisons. For instance, the Bigfoot’s walking gait is strikingly similar, the hair is of the same coloring and thickness, and you can actually see the muscle definition and tone as it lumbers through the forest.

The naysayers claim that this was simply a man in a gorilla suit which you can buy at any costume store. However, when you look at it closely, you can see variations of color and density in the creature’s hair. Also, the hair appears to be at uneven lengths, with it longer around the head/neck area and has various patches on the upper back. The Bigfoot in question appears to have naturally un-kept and shaggy hair, as most wild animals to. We have never seen a costume or gorilla suit with these specific characteristics in any store we have been to (and yes, we have been to a lot of costume shops). Considering this, it leaves us two options: either this is a suit that was painstakingly and elaborately made for a distant and brief video hoax, or it is a real Bigfoot on camera.

One thing we must also consider is the legitimacy of the person behind the camera, Harley Hoffman. He is a man whose own brother is out to prove that Santa Claus is real. He sounds a little off his rocker in his commentary (He does make a good point however, science is an attitude of questioning, not doubting…). Is a man like this capable, and willing, to go to great lengths to create a fake Bigfoot video? Maybe.

Bigfoot Finder believes in the video footage. The film is of great quality in comparison to many Bigfoot videos out there and gives a nice comparison to the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot. Harley Hoffman makes us a little uneasy, but we are going to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Bigfoot Finder believes that this is a real Bigfoot sighting.

http://bigfootfinder...igfootsighting/

The Bigfoot PGF proponents who think Hoffmanfoot looks and moves so much like Patty: Why?

Just to say for the umpteenth time not all who defend the PGF necessarily "believe". I consider myself a very objective person and i am unconvinced by many of the arguements from both sides. It is not clear cut either way for me. I do believe that many of the skeptics here come from a pov that no bf exists so therefore the pgf is fake and anything that might suggest otherwise is just believers putting the blinders on because they just want to believe.

1) Which pro-PGF arguments here do you find unconvincing? Please be specific if you can.

2) If many skeptics here think the PGF is fake because Bigfoot does not exist rather than issues with the PGF, could you name the handles of three? That should be easy. Please do not worry about offendiing me if you think I am one such person, as I don't think it's personal. Not only did I believe in Bigfoot strongly before becoming a skeptic, I also by proxy believed Patty was real despite my personal issues with the film. I was one of you. I know how PGF believers think intimately. When I hear impressions such as this, I think the person should be able to substantiate it rather than it just be a hmmmm IMO type situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

nice fake muscle. Looks like a donut. Seriously, it looks almost like the costume pants are tucked inside boots.

2qs4dmu.png

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

You mean Roger was able to stuff costume fur legs inside costume fur boots and then smooth it out somehow to look like this:

PattyFrame311Fr312WalkElbowsAG1.gif??

Man, that guy was magic!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

You mean Roger was able to stuff costume fur legs inside costume fur boots and then smooth it out somehow to look like this:

??

Man, that guy was magic!

Certainly one of the "magical" aspects about the PGf is that Patty has so many compelling moments. So many compelling poses throughout the film which when viewed as independent frames, or a short set of frames, appears amazingly realistic. There's no doubt about that. But just as it's possible to put together a single image, or a very short series of frames which seem to be flawless, as in making Patty look amazingly realistic, there are also other single frames and series of frames which do just the opposite; making Patty look like a person in a suit.

Which is why focusing on only one or two frames as proof of genuine anatomy is a flawed methodology. For example, no matter how good a film or video might look of a bigfoot strolling along, if there is just one moment where the pants fall down and are then pulled up, it negates everything else before or after that point. Even if everything before or after the pantsing seems flawless.

Of course, Patty does not have a situation where her pants fall down, but there are numerous parts in the film that do show things that are funky enough that cause big concern. Funky enough that they should not occur in a real, authentic creature. While ignoring those points it's possible to see Patty as a flawless living creature, to be honest once one sees, truly "sees" those funky anomalies, it's impossible to not see them ever again. Once you've seen Patty's pants fall down, it's hard to ignore it ever again, no matter how many individual frames or short segment of frames seem realistic.

And the fact is, there are quite a few moments in the film that provide evidence enough for reasonable doubt, and some that are just about as bad as pants falling down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

You mean Roger was able to stuff costume fur legs inside costume fur boots and then smooth it out somehow to look like this:

PattyFrame311Fr312WalkElbowsAG1.gif??

Man, that guy was magic!

he and/or whoever may have helped him. Roger had a way of getting people to do things for him for nothing. But it doesn't look smooth to me above the right ankle; looks indented on both sides. Does bigfoot wear elastic socks?

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

nice fake muscle. Looks like a donut. Seriously, it looks almost like the costume pants are tucked inside boots.

Fake muscle that moves like real calf muscle- on hip waders..

So what was it Parn? Take your pick. Can't have them all though.

Hip waders? Fake muscles? Boots? Slippers?

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kit - apparently I struck a nerve. Imo the Hoffman vid does not compare to the pgf.

Are you saying that there are NOT people here who argue from the pov that bf does not

exist? And yes i am critical of both sides..what is the point of elaboration here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thickfoot wrote:

Imo the Hoffman vid does not compare to the pgf.

It doesn't compare....the view of the HH subject, and the amount of detail visible....is not comparable to the view/amount of detail seen in Patty.

And the 'number of running threads' is not comparable.

Btw.....which Anniversary of the HA-HA-HA-Harley HO-HO-HO-HOffman Video is coming up??? I keep forgetting...

(Sorry for the stuttering... :lol: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit - apparently I struck a nerve.

Not a nerve, simply my interest in your statement. This one...

Imo the Hoffman vid does not compare to the pgf.

Excellent. You are entitled to such. These statements from Bigfoot researchers and writers say exactly the opposite...

I'll say that the subject I see in this video bears a remarkable similarity to the subject I see in the Patterson-Gimlin film. It appears these two subjects are physically related, as it refers to a common ancestry or genetic background. And I do not feel it's case of reverse engineering by the costume-maker -- if it's such.

Considering the videos of supposed Bigfoot I've seen, it's only "The Hoffman Film" that comes close to having that same measure of "Boy, that looks like a real one" that I feel marks the subject seen in the 1967 film.[/i]

This film has detail and it is very similar to the Patterson Gimlim Film.

This is obviously one of the most clear and sharpest videos of Bigfoot since the Patterson-Gimlin film, to which it has drawn many comparisons. For instance, the Bigfoot’s walking gait is strikingly similar, the hair is of the same coloring and thickness, and you can actually see the muscle definition and tone as it lumbers through the forest.

Bigfoot Finder believes in the video footage. The film is of great quality in comparison to many Bigfoot videos out there and gives a nice comparison to the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot.

As a former PGF/Bigfoot believer, I know exactly what these Bigfooters are talking about. What makes their opinions invalid compared to yours, if that is the case? What makes your opinions superior, and those Bigfoot believer peers of yours quoted above inferior in their opinion of the Hoffmanfoot and Patty being so comparable?

Are you saying that there are NOT people here who argue from the pov that bf does not

exist?

Exactly that, yes. I am saying there is not a single skeptic regularly participating here that dismisses the PGF from the position that Bigfoot does not exist, therefore the PGF must be a hoax, rather than specific issues with the PGF. If there are not only some, but many as you infer, you should have no trouble whatsoever specifying three such individuals. Do not worry as your impression of a skeptic's position is not some sort of personal attack. You can simply qualify what you are saying and take it beyond the realm of baseless subjective opinion with no basis in the reality of the BFF. That's fair, right?

And yes i am critical of both sides..what is the point of elaboration here?

I applaud you in being fair with your criticism. The point of elaboration is substantiation. I want to know particularly which pro-Patty arguments here you are critical of. You can call it fairness in practice. It's one thing to mouth the words and go through the motions and say yeah, sure, I am critical of both sides. It's another thing to say OK, this here and this here are way off base, IMO.

Watch, I'll do just what I am talking about...

River argues that the cast shown in the trackway scene and the plaster pour are in fact the same right feet. Nope. I don't think so. I think the TWS shows the right and the PPS shows the left. He feels it is just the perspective that creates that illusion and I think it is in fact no illusion.

See that? Easy breezy. Two skeptics. Two arguments. Not the same. We don't move in herds. It's like believers. Patty is human? Patty is ape? Patty was blown away in a hail of red bloody murder? Well, there you go. Different opinions. I'll do it again. Tontar does not support Bob Heironimus. Kitakaze supports Heironimus. Different! Isn't that neat?

Now if you could try that, please.

What argument presented by a PGF proponent here do you disagree with and dismiss? I would like to see this fairness of yours because I am skeptical that there is an argument put forth in favour of Patty that you will openly be critical of. That's my nature as a skeptic. Not just as a skeptic, actually, but as a former believer as well. You see, I understand from that experience in great depth the kind of behaviour and arguments that you see. Wagon-circling is what I am specifically talking about. See, as a skeptic I operate 100% completely on my own. I don't need anyone else to join me or support my arguments. Quite to the contrary. If I make a mistake in my argument, it is the person that corrects me that I most respect. Conversely, as was the case with River, if I see a skeptical argument I disagree with, I am going to apply criticism to it and show why I think it is wrong. I don't need to roll in a pack because I can stand completely alone.

So which of the pro-Patty arguments is all wrong, Thickfoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...