Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kitakaze

Pgf For Skeptics - Believers Welcome, Too.

Recommended Posts

BobZenor

Almost everyone on the forum is skeptical but that doesn't include Kit or many of his JREF gang. Words actually mean things. The definition of skeptical requires doubt. When you think you know everything,really not much of an exaggeration, you are not skeptical. How many believers do we have that believe just because? It is insulting and long past old and boring.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

For PGF skeptics:

What do you consider the most incriminating indicator(s) of a hoax?

That dark, unnatural, line that runs, horizontally, front to back, near the top of the subject's right thigh.

See my avatar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vilnoori

One thing that many sasquatch witnesses describe is an inability for the creature to turn its head and look backward. If you think about the size of the high, thick trap. muscles that an animal with a transverse/saggital crest or even an occipital bun must have it makes sense. Many of them say that the creature must turn its whole upper body to the side or around to look laterally and backwards. But what does Patty do? She turns her head back and to the side while she keeps walking. Granted there is a slight turn of the upper body as well, but not much, and not more than you would expect from a modern human. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

That dark, unnatural, line that runs, horizontally, front to back, near the top of the subject's right thigh.

See my avatar.

I agree with Romano, the ass gives it away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

One thing that many sasquatch witnesses describe is an inability for the creature to turn its head and look backward. If you think about the size of the high, thick trap. muscles that an animal with a transverse/saggital crest or even an occipital bun must have it makes sense. Many of them say that the creature must turn its whole upper body to the side or around to look laterally and backwards. But what does Patty do? She turns her head back and to the side while she keeps walking. Granted there is a slight turn of the upper body as well, but not much, and not more than you would expect from a modern human. Just sayin'.

I agree, this is one of the features of the PGF which has always indicated it was a man in a suit. I would add from years in the woods that not many animals look back by turning their head while moving, especially if moving fast. They usually get to a position of more safety and then stop to turn their bodies and look back. This may be anatomical or just a survival skill. Running one way while looking another isn't safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

That dark, unnatural, line that runs, horizontally, front to back, near the top of the subject's right thigh.

See my avatar.

We are aware of the ridiculous position of the breasts. Of course, we have all noticed the non-bounce of the supposed breasts... there is nothing in the primate breast that would make them act like this.

Another part of the costume which is defective in concept is the non-connection of the pectoral muscles to the gravity-defying "breasts." In a real human primate, the upper part of the breast tissue overlies the pectoralis ("push-up") muscle, and is connected to it through suspensory ligaments. . In a woman, when the muscle moves laterally and medially with an exaggerated arm swing, the breast tissue moves with it. If you watch the Pattyboobs while the arm swings, the "skin' on the upper chest moves laterally, but there is no associated side to side movement of the "breast"...a disconnect. So not only do these cantilevered structures not bob up and down with strides, they don't move side to side with the upper chest skin/muscles with exaggerated arm swing. This is wrong. The supposed breasts are evidently rigid structures applied to a costume which is not fastened to the pectoralis muscles of the subject.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vilnoori

Yeah. Another thing about the breasts is that they are so well formed. Real primate breasts that have not been supported by bras are saggy. Really saggy. I know from my childhood in Africa that within a couple years of childbearing and breastfeeding (after just one baby, and they had 'em early, like age 14, 15) they were flat as pancakes and reminded me of that old song, "Do your ears hang low"...except not ears, of course. LOL

Its a cultural artifact of perception. Men particularly in the 1950's had a big breast fixation. Not only did Patty have to have breasts, but they had to be really shapely, if you know what I mean. Shock value?

The REAL deal:

femalenursinggorilla.jpg

I'd post humans in the same pose but I've had my knuckles rapped before for doing that...

Edited by vilnoori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

We are aware of the ridiculous position of the breasts. Of course, we have all noticed the non-bounce of the supposed breasts... there is nothing in the primate breast that would make them act like this.

Another part of the costume which is defective in concept is the non-connection of the pectoral muscles to the gravity-defying "breasts." In a real human primate, the upper part of the breast tissue overlies the pectoralis ("push-up") muscle, and is connected to it through suspensory ligaments. . In a woman, when the muscle moves laterally and medially with an exaggerated arm swing, the breast tissue moves with it. If you watch the Pattyboobs while the arm swings, the "skin' on the upper chest moves laterally, but there is no associated side to side movement of the "breast"...a disconnect. So not only do these cantilevered structures not bob up and down with strides, they don't move side to side with the upper chest skin/muscles with exaggerated arm swing. This is wrong. The supposed breasts are evidently rigid structures applied to a costume which is not fastened to the pectoralis muscles of the subject.

There you go extrapolating human boobs onto a sasquatch again. ;)

So what material do you think would behave that way? Because if they had any weight at all they would create pleats in the suit fabric so you must assume that's why Roger made them hollow. But considering how bogus you think they look, you must find it odd that Roger would go to the bother to add nipples to those misplaced rockets. Selective attention to detail I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest yetifan

That dark, unnatural, line that runs, horizontally, front to back, near the top of the subject's right thigh.

See my avatar.

Agreed. It really appears to me to be a fabric indentdation as opposed to something that would happen between muscle and skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

There you go extrapolating human boobs onto a sasquatch again. ;)

So what material do you think would behave that way? Because if they had any weight at all they would create pleats in the suit fabric so you must assume that's why Roger made them hollow. But considering how bogus you think they look, you must find it odd that Roger would go to the bother to add nipples to those misplaced rockets. Selective attention to detail I suppose.

The boobs look to me like what one would expect to see on the cover of 50's-60'sMen's magazines (Argosy, Adventure, Homicide, True, etc.) (the only market for Bigfoot stories back then), in some sort of damsel in distress who is wearing a bra and tight blouse. Except that Patty isn't wearing a bra (or a blouse).

IT SELLS.

I don't find anything to be "odd" about the PGF. Some things about it are unexplained. I don't know the details of how Roger and/or a seamstress/upholsterer might have altered a suit. Hollow? or solid "styrofoam"? who knows? These boobs stick out as not convincing to me. In fact, I think they are a joke. They violate not just what we know of biology but also the laws of physics. So to me, the old "Sasquatch could be anything" stuff doesn't cut it....physics doesn't do special pleading. But some people like them. Roger must have liked them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Binky

I agree, this is one of the features of the PGF which has always indicated it was a man in a suit. I would add from years in the woods that not many animals look back by turning their head while moving, especially if moving fast. They usually get to a position of more safety and then stop to turn their bodies and look back. This may be anatomical or just a survival skill. Running one way while looking another isn't safe.

Now this isn't a criticism as such, but I have hunted in Ohio and Washington and most of Europe for thirty years and quite a few animals WILL turn just their heads around, Foxes do it and so do Boar of you can get them in the open, I've had a big deer turn its head right back towards me whilst legging it away.

Bigfoot doesn't exist, I know all the arguments and the evidence, but it doesn't stack up, this infrasound business for one, I once waited all day in a hide for deer in Northern France and a couple of times I felt really spooked, I mean really RUN-AWAY-NOW frightened, later that day I found out I was in a WW1 trench were many men died. Later I realised that I had known that this area was a virtual killing field that I had read about years before - not suprising is it.

The woods speak to our atavistic natures, and if you can welcome the fear that you sometimes feel in the wild you will find a peculiar joy in conquering your animal nature. You are the most mysterious and dangerous thing out in the wild, (usually).

Edit: This was posted by my Dad. He should really get his own account. I hope he will soon, as Dad is an honest and practical feller.

Edited by Binky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I debunked the "those can't be real breasts" BS back on the old forum, linking to several examples of real women with very pendulus if not outright saggy breasts. (Earned a 30 day vacation toojust for posting a LINK, not an in-line image. No one ever explained to me how I was supposed to prove a point without pointing to the evidence...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Wow, where to begin?

My greatest challenges with the PGF are:

- Gimlin and Patricia Patterson refusals to consent to real interviews

- The timeline of filming Patty and developing the film is impossible

- The first time I saw the film as a teenager I laughed because to me it looked so obviously to me to be a guy a suit

- The fold on the upper thigh, the diaper butt, the '57 Chevy boobs, the band on the arm

- No real scientists are interested in finding and cataloging the find of century

- The differences between Patterson's versions of the events vs. Patterson's versions of the events, Gimlin's versions vs. Gimlin's versions, and Gimlin's versions vs. Patterson's versions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×