Jump to content

Problems That Need Addressing.....


Guest BF believer

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

1) What distance do you estimate between the footprint and the debris?

2) Do you think Patterson is not at the same location where Patty was filmed?...

3) What technique do you think Patterson used to fake that track he would show in his "documentary"? His hands only?

4) Why does Gimlin say he shot the plaster pour right after Patty yet says nothing about filming a fake track sequence for the film?

5) Do you have a report of the original second reel having a section torn off before Patterson made copies in Seattle only five days after Patty Day?

"And everywhere that Bobby walked.....the ground was 'white as snow"...

WhiteGround1.jpg

McClarintrackwalk.gif

Well....on tv it was 'as white as snow". ;)

3) What technique do you think Patterson used to fake that track he would show in his "documentary"? His hands only?

As far as the technique Roger Patterson used to make that track he would show in his "documentary"....I don't know, exactly.

1) What distance do you estimate between the footprint and the debris?

2) Do you think Patterson is not at the same location where Patty was filmed?...

It looks like the debris is several feet away from Roger....and, the ground there does look like the ground at Bluff Creek....but, it also resembles the ground on different days.....at Bluff Creek.

4) Why does Gimlin say he shot the plaster pour right after Patty yet says nothing about filming a fake track sequence for the film?

The 'cast pour' footage Bob Gimlin talked about shooting right after they filmed Patty....may be different footage than the footage posted above.

5) Do you have a report of the original second reel having a section torn off before Patterson made copies in Seattle only five days after Patty Day?

No.

Can you explain how Bob was able to make the 'eyebrows of the mask' move....to this degree?...

F350-F370AG3.gif

......when his eyes...(or ANY HUMAN's eyes)....must have been at least 1-2" behind the mask's protruding 'brow ridges'???... :)

F339-F350-F370.jpg

That is a new animation...putting together F350 with F370. Those two Frames show Patty's eyebrows at opposite extremes.....lowered and raised.

Those 2 Frames show the eyebrow movement of a real, live Sasquatch. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Twilight Fan

Wow, it really looks like the thing is blinking! That is so cool...I never saw those frames together before. It really makes it seem THAT much more unlikely to be a guy in a suit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Wow, it really looks like the thing is blinking! That is so cool...I never saw those frames together before. It really makes it seem THAT much more unlikely to be a guy in a suit.

This is the first time I've put those two frames together, Twilight. They show Patty's right eyebrow at two extremes...showing a significant degree of change/movement.

In Frame 350, Patty's eyebrow is lowered...as she's first looking into the direct sunlight...

Frame347EyebrowMovementAG3.gif

And, in Frame 370....her eyebrow appears to be raised, quite high. Put together....they show a significant degree of change/movement in the eyebrow.

You are absolutely correct, in stating it as...."THAT much more unlikely to be a guy in a suit". The degree of change these two Frames show is so danged close to 'PROOF" that Patty was a real, live creature...it isn't funny.

The 'apparent movement' is simply beyond the range of 'random noise'...and, with the 'protruding brow'....it's beyond the capability of a human inside a 'suit mask', to accomplish it. And Patty's head is turned at the exact same angle...relative to the camera/sun.

So...the only thing left, to cause it....would be a real, live animal.....a Sasquatch.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Sweet mother, I hate Twilight.

Rogue, you do know that someone would bust google-fu on your comparison, right?

Yep you're right, bad example. I was looking at the date on the banner in the background.

Anyways the theory still stands though with the overexposure. You can see the detail lost just between Roger's hands and the bucket, and his face is also glowing pretty bright in the sunlight.

Here's a better example of losing beard detail from overexposure-

55jtrn.jpg

I am not an investigator and I sure could see the difference between the two pictures immediately! The suit and tie and the hair are all different. Roguefooter, I will now know whose opinion I will no longer trust when it comes to these types of things whether or not it was an attempt to deceive or just an incredibly bad demonstration of observational abilities. :negative:

The first pic had 11/18/11 on the banner behind them, second pic was taken November 18th, 2011. I admit the mistake from comparing the dates. Mistakes happen- such is life. Does this mean you won't be renewing your fan club membership? :resent:

Edited by roguefooter
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

"And everywhere that Bobby walked.....the ground was 'white as snow"...

I'm not sure why you're changing the subject, but I know from my own personal experience that in bright overhead sunlight, a grey parade square can appear as blinding white. I was not wearing a mask at the time with one eye behind, nor was it decades before.

As far as the technique Roger Patterson used to make that track he would show in his "documentary"....I don't know, exactly.

Yet there in your thinking is Roger making a fake track that looks very much like Patty's. He even went so far as to cast it. In the context of a "documentary", Roger is going to show that track, the finding of it, and then the casting. Therefore Roger is showing his skill at creating fake tracks.

It looks like the debris is several feet away from Roger....and, the ground there does look like the ground at Bluff Creek....but, it also resembles the ground on different days.....at Bluff Creek.

Only several feet? Like 5, 6, 7, what? I would say maybe 20-ish. So would you like for people to believe that Roger three days before Patty Day, went to the sandbar at Bluff Creek, made a fake track, filmed the process, came back three days later and filmed a real Bigfoot, six days later said he had taken no film prior to Patty Day, and to this day Gimlin has no recollection of a fake track scene, yet says he filmed a plaster pour shortly after encountering Patty?

No.

And hence zero basis for an argument against the second reel having been copied with the first and existing to this day. Thank you.

Can you explain how Bob was able to make the 'eyebrows of the mask' move....to this degree?...

Why should I explain something you insist to be objectively real like as if I accept it, when a subjective interpretation is not fact? You do understand that you do not get to enforce your opinions as reality, yes?

Can you explain the ninji reverting to an NES or the disappearing pineapple on the tree pizza?

C8-F371F372AG1.gif

Allow me to help you understand this. There are all manner of things happening all over the film that do not reflect the physical reality of what the camera filmed. Moving eyebrows comes with a lot of moving everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

Why should I explain something........

Did you forget about the 'proof in your back pocket'??

This eyebrow movement is so danged close to PROOF that Patty is/was a real, live breathing near-human animal....that it simply is not funny. It's nothing less than AMAZING.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
Yep you're right, bad example. I was looking at the date on the banner in the background.

(snip)

The first pic had 11/18/11 on the banner behind them, second pic was taken November 18th, 2011. I admit the mistake from comparing the dates. Mistakes happen- such is life. Does this mean you won't be renewing your fan club membership?

Do you feel you deserve less, more, or equal the consideration that you accorded voodoosix when you insisted dishonesty and deception on his part in presenting a video in which he stated it was was just a quick look using ballpark estimation, the main point being that no way was Patty 7'4"?

You stated in your original video that when you did the foot measurement on yourself that it came out about right with your height- that was the whole point of your comparison. All of a sudden you're claiming there were notes and details that nobody saw to cover your tracks?

Now the videos are deleted- how convenient.

Did you forget about the 'proof in your back pocket'??

No. Did you forget about your mouth movement proof in your back pocket, or do you feel you have a more legitimate reason to keep things you work on out of public view that should not be allowed for me?

This eyebrow movement is so danged close to PROOF that Patty is/was a real, live breathing near-human animal....that it simply is not funny. It's nothing less than AMAZING.

That would be a subjective opinion. What would you say is the general consensus regarding people looking at what you say is mouth movement in Patty?

Do people have valid reasons to be skeptical of it, or are their doubts without legitimate cause?

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Here's a better example of losing beard detail from overexposure-

55jtrn.jpg

It's nice, because we can hardly make out wear coffee dude's head ends and the wall starts.

I beckon you to come to that place where you realize and acknowledge with comfortable forthrightness that there is no way in the reality you and I inhabit that these occurred on the same day...

Bigsweats14.jpg

Bigrogercastdisplay.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Well one more example, this time Hugh Jackman-

2re6z43.jpg

Yes I made sure this time they're the same event-

http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Hugh+Jackman/browse?Page=14

From average light to bright light, look how much beard he lost with a high-res digital camera. Imagine if it were overexposed 16mm film.

Anyways i'm just saying it's a possibility. The first time i saw those film clips I thought it was just overexposure and still think it could be. In the coffee guy photo you have overexposure that makes objects blend - like Roger's hands and bucket blend together to form one white mass. If something is that overexposed then you're going to lose a lot of detail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

People can lose trust- that's their decision. The bottom line though is that the PGF will not be proven a hoax or real by popular opinion. It doesn't matter how many people are drawn towards either side of the debate, only solid proof will end it.

Edited by roguefooter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Roguefooter, I will now know whose opinion I will no longer trust when it comes to these types of things whether or not it was an attempt to deceive or just an incredibly bad demonstration of observational abilities. :negative:

Well I hope you also have the same reservations about Kitakaze, because not so long ago he couldn't tell that this picture was heavily re-touched by a newspaper artist who re-drew the lines between the toes on the cast of the right as well as all over Patterson's jacket.

Bigpgfdaily6a.jpg

Another problem that I feel needs addressing is the polygraph that Bob H allegedly passed. Is there any truth to what I have heard about there being dubious circumstances behind the test, for example, that Bob H would only agree to a lie detector if they could choose who would carry it out. If this is the case, and Bob H was calling the shots so to speak on who conducted the test, then can it really be taken at face value??

Yes. The 'tester' Ed Gelb is a fraudster with a phony PhD and the show was likely skewed towards Bob H looking truthful.

When Randy Ruegsegger of the Northwest Polygraph Examiners Association personally telephoned Bob Heironimus in 2006 and offered him a free test, Bob H declined.

Make of that what you will.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

I beckon you to come to that place where you realize and acknowledge with comfortable forthrightness that there is no way in the reality you and I inhabit that these occurred on the same day...

That may well be correct...the 'cast pour footage' may have been filmed on Tuesday, or Wednesday......and the 'cast display footage' may have been shot on Saturday night...(it was shot under artificial lighting.......ol' Rog was so 'pumped' over his encounter....he just couldn't wait for sun-up, to film his 'catch'!).....after Roger arrived back home in Yakima.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...