Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Are We Able To Recreate Pgf Today?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

I don't think Bob's fingers went all the way into the suit fingers.

I know they couldn't have. His arms were much too short, for that.

(Btw...it was determined 43 years ago, that Patty had exceptionally long arms. :D kit is trying to fully admit to the obvious....but is finding it a little difficult to get totally 'on board'. :lol: )

In G's gif, it looks like you can see the bulk of Bob's hand in Patty's wrist.

Sure, if you're wearing your $19.95 'BOB-Ray' glasses... B) ...you can...

I think the finger thing is most likely from the leg, but when you have segmented ape suit gloves (creases on the fingers)....

You hope it is....because Bob has NEVER said a word about any type of device in the hand of the "suit".

Unfortunately, for you....just like with the 'horsey-back filming'......there is no evidence supporting your belief....and plenty of evidence blowing against it. :)

(In the case of Patty's fingers bending...one bit of evidence going against the 'brushing the thigh' proposal is the fact that the hand doesn't turn, or twist.)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
(Btw...it was determined 43 years ago, that Patty had exceptionally long arms. :D kit is trying to fully admit to the obvious....but is finding it a little difficult to get totally 'on board'. :lol: )

That's interesting, because when the PGF was dismissed 43 years ago part of the reason was due to the fact Patty had very human proportions. I think Patty has long arms, but not exceptionally long. Dfoot can match Patty pretty well and he's a regular human. My own arms are proportionally longer than Patty's and I'm quite normal. Now Chabal - there are some exceptionally long arms...

Bigsebastian.jpg

Sure, if you're wearing your $19.95 'BOB-Ray' glasses... B) ...you can...

Yes, and a obvious human arm in a loose suit. You don't need any special glasses. See for yourself...

Bigpattycomp1.jpg

You hope it is....because Bob has NEVER said a word about any type of device in the hand of the "suit".

No, just I think. I always hoped Patty was real, but I got over it. It can easily be the leg as it is raising up in the frame you reference, but it could be other things. Ape suit gloves have segments and will bend accordingly...

61855.jpg?zm=500,500,1,0,0

The neat thing is that you yourself said Bob had hand extensions inside the suit at Cow Camp, but he never did and he could still match Patty...

In the comparison image that you use, to show that 'Bob-in-a-suit matches Patty'....Bob has hand extensions in the suit...(Hey....just ask him :) ).

The One Million Years BC suits are cool too because they exceed Patty's arms, bend exactly the same way in the hands, and also do not use and device to make fingers move.

(In the case of Patty's fingers bending...one bit of evidence going against the 'brushing the thigh' proposal is the fact that the hand doesn't turn, or twist.)

There's nothing that dictates that the hand must twist. There is a bulge in the wrist where Bob's bulk of his hand might be. The gloves may have been part of the suit or securely in place. Leg brushing is quite possible, but only one plausible explanation that need not invoke the fantastical. Certainly a blurry frame of Patty where you don't even know what is going on with her forearms is of no help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

yet again you do your jump jive and wail away.

You posted a pic with BH's head over the image of Patty. Yet you still do your typical 'not to scale' because it serves your purposes of misdirection.

Since your trying to scale BH's head onto the image, cannot you see that his forehead is much larger than the image you posted upon? His head doesn't fit.. your scale is off.. again.

Appears Bh and Morris have you duped again..

Edited by masterbarber
Removed unacceptable content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I can see fine. Bob's head is simply not at the same angle as Patty's. It's turned almost straight to the camera where Patty's is at an angle. Thus Bob's forehead would appear bigger to you across Patty's face. The overlay is crude, but the point is acheived. Bob's head even straight on can fit in Patty without the slope of his head exceeding hers.

Bob's head fits in Patty's. It's neither misdirection nor proof of a hoax.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

kitakaze-

Logic must win out in this mess.

Do not turn that statement around and tell me that you ARE being logical, because your entire premise is flawed.

You do know that this is an exercise in futility, correct? Perhaps that is why it is so frustrating, because it isn't clear that you are aware of this. It seems like you may actually think that you can prove the PGF was a hoax. If you acknowledge that this is really just a fun process and an interesting debate, then fine. If we are actually debating positions to try to convince anyone, then I have to question the whole process. Are you trying to change anyones mind? Get more people on "your side". I just cant get a grip on what the heck we are doing.

The film cannot be proven to be a hoax. That is it, period.

It does not matter how many things, how many details you show could have been faked - it will NEVER mean that they were. Am I the only one who can see this? I can't be.

It could be proven that it COULD have been a hoax, but that is the end game right there. And proving it COULD have been a hoax is utterly meaningless. It is like proving the moon landing could have been a hoax. It would not mean that it WAS a hoax.

Honestly, I just don't understand your point. I will say this again:

The people that think this is a real Sasquatch do not think so because they think that it could not have been faked.

Ok, one more time:

The people that think this is a real Sasquatch do not think so because they think that it could not have been faked.

Therefore showing that it COULD have been hoaxed will not change anything whatsoever regarding this film. Why are you so invested in this? Were you personally offended when your belief in the film was damaged? Did you personally feel cheated or duped, and now you are out to make everyone else feel that same feeling - or punish those responsible? I just don't get it.

Because it is a meaningless exercise, with no chance of victory, this all starts to seem a little loony. It is like playing tennis over two different nets. All of it is just diversion that means nothing to the validity of the film. The timeline is not possible? What does that have to do with the subject in the film? There are many reasons the timeline could be false. Could it be deception? Of course - but it may not be deception done because the subject is fake. It could be deception to hide some other aspect of the events. In any case - it doesn't matter! The film cannot be proven to be fake, short of Bob Gimlin confessing that it was. If you post a video of that, you have my attention. Posting pictures of costume arms means absolutely nothing, you might as well be posting pictures of butterflies.

Please - maybe I missed it, but tell me what your end game is - what are you trying to accomplish? Please don't say building a suit or showing that it could have been hoaxed.

The only thing that would make any sense is if you say you are hoping to show that it could NOT have been hoaxed, to restore your own previous personal opinion that the film is probably real.

Edited by Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sorry for the double post. I don't have any idea why that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Harry, just a tip: You will see down at the bottom right of your posts a button which says "delete." Hit that on one of your double posts to get rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

It's been removed, carry on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

That's interesting, because when the PGF was dismissed 43 years ago part of the reason was due to the fact Patty had very human proportions.

That's interesting, because 43 years ago, when the Film was first viewed...people looked at Patty and exclaimed...."Oh....look....she has exceptionally long arms!"...

PattyBobPattyButtComp2.jpg

Nowadays, kit views the Film....and exclaims...

I don't think Bob's fingers went all the way into the suit fingers
I've been very clear that NO hand extensions were needed for both Patty and Bob at Cow Camp in Phil's suit.
I think Patty has long arms, but not exceptionally long

OH HO HO... :lol: ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96kwILL35ig

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

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.'"

So we only have De Atley's word for this strange story?

In that case I doubt that 75000 dollars ever went from him to Roger at that time. It's just big talk years later.

De Atley was a businessman.Why give away a quarter million in 2011 money, on the very uncertain (possibly ludicrous) venture to make money touring an untried film?

Where did DeAtley get this princely sum? If his business was in deep trouble, as it is said to have been, where did the money come from?

If DeAtley had that sum, and his buiness was failing, would he give it to Roger before a penny came in from the film?

Got to look at this again. De Atley seems hardheaded and capable overall. Only a sucker would have given Roger that huge sum at that moment.

Fister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
You do know that this is an exercise in futility, correct? Perhaps that is why it is so frustrating, because it isn't clear that you are aware of this. It seems like you may actually think that you can prove the PGF was a hoax.

(snip)

The film cannot be proven to be a hoax. That is it, period.

(snip)

The people that think this is a real Sasquatch do not think so because they think that it could not have been faked.

(snip)

Why are you so invested in this? Were you personally offended when your belief in the film was damaged? Did you personally feel cheated or duped, and now you are out to make everyone else feel that same feeling - or punish those responsible? I just don't get it.

Because it is a meaningless exercise, with no chance of victory, this all starts to seem a little loony. It is like playing tennis over two different nets. All of it is just diversion that means nothing to the validity of the film. The timeline is not possible? What does that have to do with the subject in the film? There are many reasons the timeline could be false. Could it be deception? Of course - but it may not be deception done because the subject is fake. It could be deception to hide some other aspect of the events. In any case - it doesn't matter!

The film cannot be proven to be fake, short of Bob Gimlin confessing that it was. If you post a video of that, you have my attention.

Hi, Harry, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. You have some good questions which are quite understandable. I hear all of the above quite often. It can't happen. You can't do it. Who do you think you are?, etc. Yes, I do actually have the audacity to think I can end the PGF controversy and I've put a lot of time, effort and planning into it. Let me be perfectly clear with you - what I do on the Internet in forums is one thing, what I do off of them regarding my project is quite different. On the Internet I discuss reasons to consider the PGF a hoax. It's fun and stimulating. Off of it I deal with proof of it. The Internet is a tool and a double-edged sword. It can be used to great advantage if used with with precision and care. It can also be an utter distraction and a quagmire.

There are only two things I would categorize as proof of the PGF hoax. You mention a confession from Gimlin. That could definitely qualifiy for many people. There are others who would claim that Gimlin had been tricked, bribed, it was fake, etc. The best proof of of a hoax when dealing with highly entrenched beliefs is something that would amount to overkill and not hinge on one sole aspect. Everything I do off the Internet is for a documentary film project about Bigfootery.

I was disappointed and bummed out when I discovered for certain that the PGF is a hoax, but I have no ill feelings about it. The particulars of the hoax became of equal interest to me. I have no intention of punishing anyone. I actually think ending the PGF controversy will be a good thing for Bigfootery. I would hope that if Bigfoot really did exist, people would focus on something other than the PGF.

You said, "The people that think this is a real Sasquatch do not think so because they think that it could not have been faked."

This simply isn't true. Here is one man who said exactly the opposite when speaking to Seattle's Evening Magazine television program...

Green+John.jpg

In fact, I think if I were to take the time, I could dig up a plethora of quotes by PGF proponents that are exactly the opposite of what you said. I'll save that for another time. The short answer is no, my goal is not to seek proving the PGF could have been hoaxed, but rather to answer the that question definitively with proof, and yes, I absolutely think I will and that no person has ever come closer.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

So we only have De Atley's word for this strange story?

No, it was also documented in newspapers and Patterson Bigfoot club material. I'll go rummage for it later.

In that case I doubt that 75000 dollars ever went from him to Roger at that time. It's just big talk years later.

De Atley was a businessman.Why give away a quarter million in 2011 money, on the very uncertain (possibly ludicrous) venture to make money touring an untried film?

Why not simply pick up the book, read what DeAtley explains about it, and learn why he thought touring the film was such a good venture?

Where did DeAtley get this princely sum? If his business was in deep trouble, as it is said to have been, where did the money come from? If DeAtley had that sum, and his buiness was failing, would he give it to Roger before a penny came in from the film?

Yes, and that is exactly what he did. He considered it an investment. He was a shrewd businessman even if he did have dinitial ifficulty with Superior Asphalt when he took over the busniess from his father. DeAtley comes from old money and his family was and is one of the wealthiest in the PNW. DeAtley by his own words considered the PGF nothing but a business venture - a cashgrab - and that's exactly what he achieved. Much of his disdain for Roger had to due with the fact that he felt he was useless for any actual planning and was useful only for hyping. When you learn the history of the PGF, whether you think it is a hoax or no, the cashgrab factor dominated every aspect of it.

Got to look at this again.

Just what I think you should do. I've looked at the situation far deeper than you know, you must realize by now. BTW, did you finish reading the book front to back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Harry

Too funny...

Your "concern" for kitakaze is duly noted. So what you're really saying (if I could paraphrase your lengthy diatribe) is something like the person who puts his fingers in his ears and says "I can't hear you," but you say it is kitakaze who is starting to sound a little loony. Oooookay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

No, just I think.

No, you hope.

That's why you promote an idea which has no evidence supporting it....and plenty of evidence contradicting it.

It can easily be the leg as it is raising up in the frame you reference, but it could be other things. Ape suit gloves have segments and will bend accordingly...

No, it cannot "easily" be the leg....when Patty's arm, and hand, is several inches away...laterally...from the side of her leg...

PattyRVBobFVShoulderJointAG1.gif

There's nothing that dictates that the hand must twist

Nothing....other than simple physics. An empty glove hand being brushed by a leg moving forward would twist/turn....and, in the film....we don't see any indication that the hand is turning...

PattyFingerBendAG5Fade1.gif

If the hand was turning away from an edge-on view, it would become wider. That does not happen.

Also, Grover Krantz mentioned...in his book 'Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence'...that Patty's hand, in addition to the fingers curling...bends at the wrist, in those frames. That detail can be seen, in the animated-gif I posted.

As is typical...your "analysis" is wrong/meaningless. :D

There is a bulge in the wrist where Bob's bulk of his hand might be.

And there's a wonderful world of 'make-believe'....just inside your head. :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hi, Harry, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. You have some good questions which are quite understandable. I hear all of the above quite often. It can't happen. You can't do it. Who do youn think you are?, etc. Yes, I do actually have the audacity to think I can end the PGF controversy and I've put a lot of time, effort and planning into it. Let me be perfectly clear with you - what I do on the Internet in forums is one thing, what I do off of them regarding my project is quite different. On the Internet I discuss reasons to consider the PGF a hoax. It's fun and stimulating. Off of it I deal with proof of it. The Internet is a tool and a double-edged sword. It can be used to great advantage if used with with precision and care. It can also be an utter distraction and a quagmire.

There are only two things I would categorize as proof of the PGF hoax. You mention a confession from Gimlin. That could definitely qualifiy for many people. There are others who would claim that Gimlin had been tricked, bribed, it was fake, etc. The best proof of of a hoax when dealing with highly entrenched beliefs is something that would amount to overkill and not hinge on one sole aspect. Everything I do off the Internet is for a documentary film project about Bigfootery.

I was disappointed and bummed out when I discovered for certain that the PGF is a hoax, but I have no ill feelings about it. The particulars of the hoax became of equal interest to me. I have no intention of punishing anyone. I actually think ending the PGF controversy will be a good thing for Bigfootery. I would hope that if Bigfoot really did exist, people would focus on something other than the PGF.

You said, "The people that think this is a real Sasquatch do not think so because they think that it could not have been faked."

This simply isn't true. Here is one man who said exactly the opposite when speaking to Seattle's Evening Magazine television program...

Green+John.jpg

In fact, I think if I were to take the time, I could dig up a plethora of quotes by PGF proponents that are exactly the opposite of what you said. I'll save that for another time. The short answer is no, my goal is not to seek proving the PGF could have been hoaxed, but rather to answer the that question definitively with proof, and yes, I absolutely think I will and that no person has ever come closer.

I have never asked the questions you cite:

"It can't happen. You can't do it. Who do you think you are?"

Do not minimize my questions and points by diverting attention from what I say to something different, that you dismiss as saying I am just one of many who has asked these questions.

I have explained why the first two are absolutely true, given what you have been presenting on this forum. The third sounds like more of an affront - but I am asking your motivation specifically.

Not from the position that you, personally are not capable. I come from the position that:

a. Proving that something COULD have been hoaxed, DOES NOT prove it was. This is an absolute. It applies to anything, not just this film.

b. Proving that it could have been faked, will not shatter everyones opinion that this could be real. Some people may put the thought that it COULD NOT have been hoaxed as primary in their analysis, but I can tell you that not everyone does.

c. What you are presenting is obviously not what it is that you say you have that is definitive proof, by your own description.

So, I suppose my final question is only - if what you are doing here on this forum is not what you plan to do eventually regarding this film, why are you doing it at all, except to get attention or stir the pot of conflict?

If you have proof, other than the suit could have been faked and the timeline is inconsistent, you should present the evidence, or stop posting pictures of costume arms until you do. And yes that is just my personal view.

I speak only for myself, and if other people are enjoying this pointless analysis, then I say, fair enough. (and, yes I explained specifically why I call it pointless - it is not just rhetoric)

Edited by Harry

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...