Jump to content
SweatyYeti

Was Bob Heironimus Patty? Pt 1

Recommended Posts

Drew

No, I have no personal stake in this. I study the film and don't see a costume of any kind, made by any person. So anyone who may come to claim having made or supplied such a costume, I would look upon with suspicion, and want to see some form of evidence to support the claim. Mosrris has offered no evidence I find compelling in any way so far.

Bill

I disagree with this. I think you do have a personal stake in this. You are a believer in Bigfoot, and have been for a while. You have worked with Bigfooters in past films, before you ever came here to BFF. I think you have a personal more than a financial stake in trying to show the PGF depicts a real Bigfoot.

Have you not collaborated with people who made Bigfoot documentaries in the past? In fact, didn't you work on a film with the wife of someone who was featured on a Monsterquest episode about Bigfoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChrisBFRPKY

I disagree with this. I think you do have a personal stake in this. You are a believer in Bigfoot, and have been for a while. You have worked with Bigfooters in past films, before you ever came here to BFF. I think you have a personal more than a financial stake in trying to show the PGF depicts a real Bigfoot.

Have you not collaborated with people who made Bigfoot documentaries in the past? In fact, didn't you work on a film with the wife of someone who was featured on a Monsterquest episode about Bigfoot?

I think this post is a real good example of what not to do on the forum. This is all about Bill and not about Bill's argument. Attack the argument,or evidence a member presents, not the member. Chris B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Drew:

"I disagree with this. I think you do have a personal stake in this."

It can be argued that any participant has a personal stake in the topic, or else why would they take the time and participate?

I have a personal interest. Is that a "personal stake"? I want to know what's in that mysterious film. Is seeking knowledge or understanding a "personal stake"?

"You are a believer in Bigfoot, and have been for a while."

You are misinformed. I have consistantly acknowledged I am mystified by the Bigfoot phenomenon. And any conclusion I offer is based on analysis and evidence, not belief.

"You have worked with Bigfooters in past films, before you ever came here to BFF"

Would you cite an example? If not please retract this statement.

I think you have a personal more than a financial stake in trying to show the PGF depicts a real Bigfoot."

I have a personal stake in learning the truth. I value education and I like to know more about the curious things in the natural world, as well as knowing the technology of the human endeavor. You are just spouting skeptical "talking points". I thought you gave up your job as Mayor of Fantasyland. Were you re-instated?

"Have you not collaborated with people who made Bigfoot documentaries in the past? In fact, didn't you work on a film with the wife of someone who was featured on a Monsterquest episode about Bigfoot?"

I don't have a clue whom you are referring to. Care to name a name?

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

A lot of skeptics seem to be pre-occupied with motives (which are generally none of their business) to the extent that it limits the time that they could be looking at physical evidence.

If somebody makes money from their own honest efforts, that is called making an honest living. There seem to be several suspicious mind-readers, similar to Long, in our midst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

This is the 'wrong colour, a bit to bulky, but otherwise spot on', Vincent?

post-131-010793700 1294777853_thumb.jpg

If someone claimed that was a real Bigfoot; how many thousands of hours of research, reports and commentary and how many documentaries do you think would be made about it? I'm guessing not too many. I honestly see almost zero comparison between the two.

Just compare every single body part in the PGF Creature individually with those in the CC costume and see if any of the CC costume body parts look as realistic. IMO, they do not.

I think if that new morris suit was filmed under the same exact circumstances as the pgf, exactly, we would still be discussing it. And if, lets say, the "orange patty" was the original patty, and morris recently tried to recreate it and came up with the "brown" patty, bigfoot fans would be talking about how crap the brown slimmer patty is, cuz everyone knows real squatches are orange and bulkier.

Im not tooting my own horn, but im a bigfoot pissibiluty believer, who is new to the pgf "controversy". I like to think i have an outsiders view in terms of seeing clearly. I see clear, unmistakeable marks of a suit. Mostly from proponents posting pictures trying to show the the elbow is 1 inch longer than bobs or something(fictional example).

Between the telltale suit signs imho, plus the multi-holed story where almost nothing adds up, from who was there to when to why to even the film developing... I can only call hoax. I sooooooooo wish it werent. And i dont think all those good folks who claim to have seen something are crazy. Something very well might be out there, but i just dont believe patterson got it on film.

If we ever find one, it should look like patty, considering if they exist its only 5000 or less (so i understand) and they will be extremely homogenic and therefore exceptionally similar.

Ill gladly change my tune then;)

Bigfoot rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

parnassus:

"Well, I'd like to reassure you about the velocity of the foot in the vertical plane, as I do not believe there is much at this stage of swing, and I do find it curious that I can't find other areas of your analysis where you are much bothered by this consideration."

Well, I'd like to point out that the foot, when it is lifted to move from the rear step to a forward step, has the highest velocity of any moving body part, and thus is subject to the most motion blur. That is why I find more concern for motion blur in the foot analysis then I do for general body analysis.

The below is one portion of the work in progress:

WalkcycleExample.jpg

It will eventually allow a precise calculation of the range of motion in each frame , allow for a 50% blackout (as the shutter closes and the camera does a pulldown) and them this walking figure can be re-aligned to the camera angle and perspective to make the final determination of how the true motion is impacted upon by camera perspective. Then we will know how much motion blur there is in a given frame of walking.

Your chart, by the way, is just smoke and mirrors, nice eye candy but no analytical merit for the issue at hand.

Bill

Anything to get you moving on the issue!! :D But did you understand the text? that's where the analysis was. Hope this software simulation works better for you than the site model did. :rolleyes:

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

Bill worked on my favourite film of literally all time " return of the living dead" (which has amazing costumes n makeup btw) so i definitely respect his opinion, even though i think its completely wrong. But i definitely respect the work he's put into proving the existance of patty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

parnassus:

"But did you understand the text?"

This remark of yours is rather vague. Did you mean your text that accompanied your smoke and mirrors chart?

If so, the text was a fine example of your failing to understand the problem because you cannot analyze motion blur without acknowledging and factoring in the camera, it's position relative to subject, the shutter speed, and the subject motion in relation (object space) to the camera's line of sight vector.

Without those considerations, your text was a meaningless example that you know technical and anatomical words, but not the larger analysis process. So you arrived at a conclusion about motion blur without having considered all the factors or criteria, and thus achieved a meaningless and flawed conclusion.

Bill

Vincent:

I can't say that was my favorite film, but since you like it, you may want to know that a new book is coming out soon on the making of that film, and it explains in far greater detail and accuracy what transpired on the filming, (which has been poorly or mistakenly reported often over the years).

:)

Bill

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I believe in expressing opinions but as Chris said, let me remind you to keep the posts directed towards the argument, not the one doing the arguing.

I have personally addressed about ten reports from this thread in the past three days. I can not believe that a bunch of men ranging in ages from 30-60 are finding the need to even use the report button. Please act like the adults that I know all of you are and remember where you are, you are not on the playground!!! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

haha! You're probably right about the avatar, Sweaty, it was great while it lasted.

It sure was... :)

I'm glad to see that Spock is one of the millions and millions of people (as per the Morris Costumes web-site) who believe that Patty is the real deal.

Yup, it's a pretty big deal when even Spock "believes". You know his analysis isn't clouded by emotion....it's all 'straight intellect', with that guy! :mellow:

The only way I could see anybody looking at the PGF and 'knowing' it was their costume would be if they had actually created at least most of the details of it and, not if they had just basically supplied some Dynel artificial fur (which obviously would need to have been transformed into something that looks totally different).

Sure...and, what makes Phil's "recognizing the suit", back in 1967, even more ridiculous...is that he would have seen the Film on a 1967 TV...which, at it's largest, would have been only a 25" screen. And, if the Film was aired uncropped...Patty would have only been about 4" tall, on the screen.

And, to boot...the 'main tv' in the house, back then, was a floor model (25") console, with the screen only about a foot above the floor.

So.....considering all that....and the FACT that 'a Morris suit and Patty' have no resemblance to each other, to start with.....how could Philip Morris have possibly recognized Patty as his suit???

Which specific details "set the bells off", in his head???

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Which specific details "set the bells off", in his head???

A vision of $$$$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Spazmo

I believe in expressing opinions but as Chris said, let me remind you to keep the posts directed towards the argument, not the one doing the arguing.

I have personally addressed about ten reports from this thread in the past three days. I can not believe that a bunch of men ranging in ages from 30-60 are finding the need to even use the report button. Please act like the adults that I know all of you are and remember where you are, you are not on the playground!!! :angry:

Agreed, and I must admit that I'm just as guilty as others.

Thanks for the words of wisdom, Jodie.

Apologies to the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

A vision of $$$$$

Hogsback, can you please not make personal aspersions as to why Phil and Amy Morris felt that the PGF was one of their costumes modified when they first saw it? I know these people personally. I think it was primarily the fact they had sold Patterson a suit in August 1967 that convinced them the suit was theirs, but Amy in particular felt the suit came from them and thought so on first sight.

If I wrote "a vision of $$$$" about Gimlin and Dahinden recounting his demanding money from Patterson's film to Patricia at Roger's funeral, I would expect a broil and outcry. Phil and Amy Morris did a five hour interview with me in Victoria at their own expense. Phil's entire involvement with the NatGeo Is It Real? production was at his expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It' s my opinion, kit. There are several here who consider BobG a friend, and you've done much worse than claim he's a money grabber. The hypocrisy continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

No. I am not MK Davis or Dave Paulides. I do not suggest Bob Gimlin is a mass murderer. I do not even accuse him of a crime as Long did. I suggest he was part of a Bigfoot hoax. He does not tell one story.

Much worse? Find it. Quote it. Or please spare the drama.

If you have an opinion, I suggest qualifying it as such. It's demanded of me, I ask it of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...