Jump to content

Pgf The Film Itself


Guest Crowlogic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Crowlogic

I've started a thread about certain PGF personalities. Kit has his thread which effectively is dealing with PGF personalities and Bill has his lyric based PGF as a mystery thread. Lets have this thread for the film itself. I hope we can fill this to the brim with pros and cons lots of photos, and colorful arrows. In other words all the things that are frequently bashed elsewhere. Lets see it all! But lets make this as graphical as possible and leave the wordplay to the other personality threads especially since the PGF is a silent film lol! Of course words are welcome to describe the opinion of the poster concerning the graphics. So I'll start, It still looks real to me!

post-242-069256500 1283623676_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Patterson would most likely be pleased that you think he did a good job on the suit.

What are you trying to show with the left arm thing?

When certain primates are agitated the hair/fur on their forearms and somtimes the entire body can erect to form a more imposing image to whatever it agitating them. The technical term for it is piloerection (SP). The fur on the back of the neck can erect too which is hackles. The fur on Patty's left arm marked in green seems to abruptly widen as does the piloerected gorilla in the photo accompanying the Patty photo. Human's can do it too but we aren't hairy enough to make the effect observable.

I don't know whether or not Roger Patterson would have been pleased but one thing is for certain whatever is on that strip of film is unlike anything on any other strip of film before or since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Passionate Member
BFF Donor

Now that's what I'm talkin' about! Patty looks more like a real animal than the gorilla! I don't understand the attitude that 'it's obviously a person in a bad gorilla suit'. What are they looking at?? Oh yeah, the "back-story" which, any minute now, will suddenly explain exactly what we see in the film.. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parnassus

Now that's what I'm talkin' about! Patty looks more like a real animal than the gorilla! I don't understand the attitude that 'it's obviously a person in a bad gorilla suit'. What are they looking at?? Oh yeah, the "back-story" which, any minute now, will suddenly explain exactly what we see in the film.. :)

To me it pretty much walks like a man and is the size and proportions of a man wearing shoulder pads, butt pads and a hood. I can't see enough detail to even see the eyes or nose and barely make out a mouth, so I can't judge much about the costume except I see bulges that aren't muscles.

I saw a film of Billy Mays selling the Awesome Auger... on the screen it looked great and on the screen it said 19.95. A lot of people bought it. I didn't because I read the backstory on the internet. With shipping and handling it came to $65 bucks and it was junk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parnassus

John Napier was Director of the Primate Biology Program at the Smithsonian Institution when he reviewed the PGF.

He actually felt that Sasquatch might possibly be real, but it wasn't in the PGF.

From his book, Napier, John. Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality. London:Jonathan Cape, 1972. p. 90:

After viewing the film repeatedly in a private showing:

1. The walk was consistent in general terms with the bipedal striding gate of modern man, Homo sapiens.

2. The cadence of the walk, the general fluidity of body movements and the swing of the arms were to my mind grossly exaggerated. At the time I annotated this statement with the comment that the walk was "self-conscious."

3. In spite of the heavy, pendulous breasts visible as the creature turned towards the camera, the style of walking was essentially that of a human male.

4. The appearance of a somewhat coneshaped top to the skull...essentially it is a male characteristic, only very occasionally seen, to an insignificant extent, in females.

5. The physical build of the creature with its heavy neck, shoulders and chest strongly suggest that the centre of gravity of the body would lie at a higher level in the Sasquatch than it does in man; this in turn would alter the characteristics of the walk, which reduced to its mechanical baseline is a problem of moving the centre of gravity through space. The assumption therefore is made that in spite of he anatomical appearance that argues to the contrary --the centre of gravity of the subject is precisely as it is in modern man.

6. The presence of buttocks, a human hallmark, is at total variance with the ape-like nature of the superstructure. Buttocks, however, are consistent with the pattern of the walk and, thus, with the inferred position of the centre of gravity of the body. the upper half of the body bears some resemblance to an ape and the lower half is typically human. It is almost impossible to conceive that such structural hybrids could exist in nature. One half of the animal must be artificial. In view of the walk, it can only be the upper half.

Those latter two points 5 and 6 in essence point to the idea that the upper body mass is an illusion, ie "hollow" Shoulder pads. imho. Napier, after writing this, viewed the film many more times, including individual frames. Even though Napier "could not see the zipper," his conclusion remained the same:
"There is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind. The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis"
,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Napier's comments need some context:

He is describing the features of known primates such as gorillas when stating that buttocks are a human feature. Does Napier know whether or not a Sasquatch should have buttocks?

His opinion is valid based on his knowledge of known primates, but how much water does it hold when discussing possibly unknown primates? His comments clearly show that the discrepancies listed are from his knowledge of known primates.

Now let's ask another question:

Are there any reports in which the observer describes muscular, human-like buttocks? Yes, there are many of them. Has Napier claimed to have seen a Sasquatch with buttocks (or any Sasquatch)? No, he hasn't.

Again, his comments are completely valid in the proper context, but everyone needs to be aware that his status and experience do not make him right (or wrong).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think this frame from the pgf is interesting in that the right arm is swung so far back and yet the so called shoulder pads seem to be unaffected.

post-91-078835200 1284490990_thumb.jpg

Edited by nycBig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this frame from the pgf is interesting in that the right arm is swung so far back and yet the so called shoulder pads seem to be unaffected.

Seems too blurry to tell whether or not alleged shoulder pads are being affected or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted these pics on the V.1 and will put them up again here. When the anatomical features of Patty's leg and knee are examined, I believe details that should be there if it is a real leg covered with skin and hair are indeed visible. I see what look like tendons attaching to the knee, especially the hamstring tendons.

post-9-081918900 1284559293_thumb.jpgpost-9-063773500 1284559277_thumb.jpg

post-9-016113400 1284559320_thumb.jpgpost-9-039634200 1284559347_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The looping gif highlights and isolates an odd "anatomical" feature that appears at the top of the subject's right thigh. It allows the viewer to study the feature without having to stop and back up the clip over and over.

The sketch of the leg musculature is provided for comparison and contrast.

post-6024-1211062676.gifthigh_lateral.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Engaged Member
BFF Donor

Thank you for sharing.I can see the muscles as described.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Idifoot thanks for posting those photos. They are the best illustrations of muscle detail with comparison to known configurations that I've ever seen. I don't know how anyone can look at this and say its a suit. I would love it to be a suit it would be a very tidy way to wrop up my connection with things Bigfoot. But this positively screams real animal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Passionate Member
BFF Donor

The legs and arms of that creature always looked real and pretty scary to me. I'm trying to figure out just how odd the apparent subduction of the thigh really is. Anybody got any thoughts on that? thx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xspider1:

" I'm trying to figure out just how odd the apparent subduction of the thigh really is. Anybody got any thoughts on that? thx "

It occurs between two consecutive frames, meaning it happens in 1/16th of a second or less, and only "subducts" one way, and doesn't un-subduct (unless you click two frames back and forth, which isn't real life, which goes one way, forward).

I'll grant you it's a curious thing, but it's not a normal costume effect. I'm still looking at it, as time permits, to see if it can be finally explained.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...