Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Are We Able To Recreate Pgf Today?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

Are you throwing a wet blanket on the people who say the subducting thigh line is from patty's hand? LOL

I do respectfully disagree with anyone who says they think that Patty's fingers are brushing against the side of her leg.

But, I'll be more than happy to look at any animations that anyone says is showing the hair changing, as the hand passes by. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Great finger-bending animation, Giganto....I've never seen it before. (The hand must be scraping something, though......it's just gotta be... )

G thinks it's a glove just as I do. It looks just like a loose glove and you can even see where the real arm is inside the suit. A loose glove is not going to stay static when being swung back and forth while walking. Also, when you halp ape suit gloves, they are not dishwashing gloves. They have segmented fingers and thus a loose fitting ape suit glove does not bend the same as wood glove for washing or gardening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Wow Ol' Dfoot looks like somebody stuck him with a basketball inflater and let her rip. Roger had the means, the motives and the connections to make a Bigfoot film. However his connections later displayed a remarkable inability to walk their talk and recreate and or even describe accurately just what it is we're seeing on that film. Now if Al gave Roger $75,00 after the PGF came out big deal. Everybody will back a winner and Roger was a loser until he made that film so all it means is AL knew where the money would be green after Oct 20 1967.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You left out this part of my post... ;) ...

The hand need not turn sideways when touching the leg. Also, Patty's right leg is lifting right at the frame of the bend. This apeman's arm is a clone for the Patty finger bend, but we know that is not the actual hand in the glove...

Bigmillion8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Wow Ol' Dfoot looks like somebody stuck him with a basketball inflater and let her rip. Roger had the means, the motives and the connections to make a Bigfoot film. However his connections later displayed a remarkable inability to walk their talk and recreate and or even describe accurately just what it is we're seeing on that film. Now if Al gave Roger $75,00 after the PGF came out big deal. Everybody will back a winner and Roger was a loser until he made that film so all it means is AL knew where the money would be green after Oct 20 1967.

A film with an impossible timeline where the guy's brother-in-law, who disdains him and has zero belief in Bigfoot, gives him $75,000 before they even hit the road to barnstorm. He later tells Dahinden he's not supposed to tell where it was developed.

Yes, it's a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I gave you my one helpful vote for the day. You certainly deserve it! Thanks, and hugs.. :D

Thank you very much, susiq... ^_^ You are a sweetie! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No.

Deatley.jpg

This man gave Roger Patterson the modern equivalent of half a million dollars ($75,000 in 1967) as soon as the film came out.

Roger had the means, the motive, and the connections to make a fake Bigfoot film.

Do you even stop to read what you post?

He gave Roger money AFTER the film came out (that is, after the it was in fact filmed). Not before, when the putative suit would have to have been purchased/rented/constructed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

This apeman's arm is a clone for the Patty finger bend, but we know that is not the actual hand in the glove...

And Bob has said just about as much as that 'apeman' has, regarding the device inside the suit-hand......which would be NOTHING.

One more time.....apemen suits notwithstanding....Bob's fingers could not reach into Patty's fingers. That is a fact.

Therefore, in order for his fingers to be causing the bending of Patty's fingers, close to the end of the fingers....some type of device would have to have been used, in the suit-hand.

Bob has NEVER mentioned anything about it. Oops for you, and your good pal, Bob. :lol:

Bob did not cause Patty's fingers to bend.

Bob was not Patty. :D

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Do you even stop to read what you post?

He gave Roger money AFTER the film came out (that is, after the it was in fact filmed). Not before, when the putative suit would have to have been purchased/rented/constructed.

He also gave him money before the film. He also had a tanking company he just took over from his father he needed to inject capital into. He also said he knew Heironimus through Roger even though he elsewhere said that he did not see Roger from anytime between the book and the film coming out. He also told Dahinden he wasn't supposed to tell where the film was developed. He also told Byrne he knew the film was a hoax and to drop the timeline issue and not quote him.

Yes, I read what I post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
And Bob has said just about as much as that 'apeman' has, regarding the device inside the suit-hand......which would be NOTHING.

One more time.....apemen suits notwithstanding....Bob's fingers could not reach into Patty's fingers. That is a fact.

Therefore, in order for his fingers to be causing the bending of Patty's fingers, close to the end of the fingers....some type of device would have to have been used, in the suit-hand.

Bob has NEVER mentioned anything about it. Oops for you, and your good pal, Bob. :lol:

Bob did not cause Patty's fingers to bend.

Bob was not Patty. :D

I don't think Bob's fingers went all the way into the suit fingers. In G's gif, it looks like you can see the bulk of Bob's hand in Patty's wrist. The human arm also clearly shows through the loose suit arm, I think. I think the finger thing is most likely from the leg, but when you have segmented ape suit gloves (creases on the fingers), they will not bend the way a regular rubber glove will. You should give these things a serious consideration before going to the fantastical explanation of Bigfoot. Those One Million BC ape suits are not using internal devices in the arms, yet the finger bends exactly the same as Patty's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

A film with an impossible timeline where the guy's brother-in-law, who disdains him and has zero belief in Bigfoot, gives him $75,000 before they even hit the road to barnstorm. .

.

Is the 75,000 dollars more than a story, Kit? Where is it confirmed, and by what?

What did Roger spend it on? There doesn't seem to be any obvious evidence of it being spent by Roger or his family after Sept 1967----- or does there?

Half a million is a lot of money to spend without acquiring some visible assets .....

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Is the 75,000 dollars more than a story, Kit? Where is it confirmed, and by what?

What did Roger spend it on? There doesn't seem to be any obvious evidence of it being spent by Roger or his family after Sept 1967----- or does there?

Half a million is a lot of money to spend without acquiring some visible assets .....

Fister

Take your copy of Long's book and crack it open to p. 424.

"It came from me (the $75,000) right after the filming. It was for promotion of my brother-in-law's cause, I guess. Roger never worked. He was on welfare. He spent the $75,000 on his family, wife, and three kids. Roger believed in Bigfoot. I'm a little concerned that he became involved in the fact that, 'I've got to prove it even though I've got to cheat, lie, and steal to do it.'"

DeAtley spells it out quite clearly while deftly disarming any of Long's suspicions of him by feeding his hunger for dirt on Patterson. What DeAtley told Long is in full accordance with what Harvey Anderson spoke of about Roger admitting hoaxing in '61. He's trying to set up his family for his death from cancer. Of all the bone-headed huckster maneuvers Patterson did, it seems is biggest had a noble cause. No man wants to leave his family helpless.

He's got the means, the motive, the experience, and the connections. DeAtley is whiffling about what he was giving Patterson a huge sum of money for. They were in Hollywood a week and a half after shooting Patty setting up Bigfoot Enterprises, find Patty be damned. They could have found that stinking Bigfoot with the huge tracks easily with a tracking dog. Barnstorming was more attractive. That's what happens with a hoax for profit. DeAtley's money to Roger is an investment. Here, take this, shut up, do what I tell you. DeAtley made several times that amount back and dropped out of it as soon as his company was back on track.

You have a film with an impossible timeline, an evasive millionaire, and a mess that just won't add up, player contradicting themselves wildy - a hoax for profit is blaringly clear, no massacres necessary.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
Glove dynamics

ch.gif

G, I noted WP made an excellent point about your gif that escaped my notice...

Glove dynamics? Does he mean the gloves are flexing or bending? Take a look at all the other dynamic things in the gif. What does it mean when stationary objects wiggle and squirm in a gif?

Oh that's right. Dynamic sometimes just means swinging through the air and nothing else. What is that glove doing' date=' Gigantofootecus?

[img']http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/49166d76.gif[/img] da2777d5.png

Also, regarding this claim..

And you did know that Dfoot distorted his photos to give himself more girth, didn't you?

I'm going to need you to have a look at Dfoot's video those shots were taken from here at 1:26 - 1:29...

What is your proof? I can see there Jeff did not distort his video.

I think it would suck if you got two hits on the green for some illusions and a false accusation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This is your opinion stated as fact. I can twist things to my liking, also.

How about this scenario?: Roger had a bigfoot walk in front of him while his pants were down relieving himself. The shaky camera is from him getting his pants up while filming. We all know this would not be good for a documentary so Roger HAD to make up a story. Thats my opinion. The evidence supports it.(Shaky film) It is true.

Edited by Kooch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I think you are referring to post #282. I'll need you to actually quote me in order to determine what you think was an opinion stated as fact. If you have a boo at #279, you'll have just a taste of some of the facts that indicate DeAtley has been sitting for decades on a lot more than he has let on. DeAtley being partner and co-planner of the PGF is not baseless speculation like your pee-pee thing there. There are numerous factual indications that he has been hiding the truth and that he is fully aware the film was a hoax.

Also, your random scenario in no way takes into account the impossible timeline. I don't think you have a proper appreciation for just how vexing to the highest luminaries of Bigfootery the impossible timeline has been. Let's just start with one of them who did some of the most thorough work before finally getting to DeAtley...

Byrne+Peter.jpg

The impossible timeline absolutely ate at Peter Byrne. So much so that he drove around all up and down the west coast trying to figure it out and talk to everyone he could possibly talk to. Let's see what Peter himself had to say about it...

"It's a very difficult area and I have put in hundreds of hours of work on that. I've traveled, God knows how many thousands of miles, talking to people trying to piece that together."

He talked to the post offices, the bus service people, the airports, the developers, the charters pilots. He tries and tries and tries to get to DeAtley and when he finally gets him on the phone, DeAtley tells him it's a hoax and he knows it. It bothered him so much and rightfully so. Let me give you an example of what the impossible timeline nightmare does to even devoted believers. This is from Maxs, a new member of the skeptics forum where I regularly post...

This thing has been explained. It's been explained. This is the end. I have to admit it. I don't want to admit this. This has been a long-running debate lasting decades. I have been hopeful this might end otherwise. I have been hopeful this guy had filmed bigfoot.

But this time-frame thing for the film development' date=' is just killing this thing. All of the other arguments, pro or con, are just [i']specious compared to this.

Look, I wanted to believe in this thing. I really did. And I never saw a zipper, never saw convincing enough evidence denouncing Patterson's character (he was a man with cancer, an expensive and horrific illness).

But this film development thing--there's just no getting around it. Even if that lab they keep discussing had received the film and developed it, they didn't develop it by October 21, 1967, after receiving it only on the night of October 20. That just isn't enough time. It doesn't matter about the courier, or whether the lab is remembering right. the time-frame--which is nailed in because Patterson himself nailed it in when he talked to the reporter on the 20th--the time-frame, just doesn't work. There just wasn't time to develop this 36-hour minimum development time, film.

I've followed this debate for decades. I've wanted to believe. I really have. I feel defeated, dismayed, saddened, bored. But there is just nothing else that can be said. Bataan surrendered to the Japanese. Gore lost to Bush through the Supreme Court.

And the film just didn't have time to be developed, and that means this thing is a fake, a hoax. It doesn't matter about the memories, or whether an air courier was used. There just wasn't time to develop the film by Saturday morning. There just WASN'T TIME.

This has been a classic debate, a long-lived debate. But for the believers, or those, like me, who have wanted to believe, it has been a let-down.

This was a very, very, very good hoax. But it was a hoax, a fake.

Yep, it's a bummer, but even diehard believers fall before the impossible timeline. Give me a scenario that accounts for that and keeps the dream alive and I will be impressed - you'll have done what Byrne, Dahinden, Krantz, and Green were never able to do.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...