Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Are We Able To Recreate Pgf Today?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

In the Frame with the curled-fingers...the hand, at the point I highlighted, is narrower, than it is in the other Frame, with the 'straight' fingers...

PattyHandBend1.jpg

If the 'curled fingers' was the result of the hand turning, the hand would appear wider....not narrower. The hand doesn't turn, or twist...in the slightest.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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

:D Seems a bit desperate to me. When you convert to a GIF, you reduce the # of colours to 256. Colours that are close get merged into 1. Often that means losing pixels to the white background. These images were already colour reduced by MK Davis. You don't think MK was up to no good do you? :o

Also, regarding this claim..

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.

Illusions? No...VOODOO!!!

I don't need proof that Dfoot distorted his images. He was notorious for it. Bob H wouldn't fit into Patty without it.

BH_Dfoot_widened.gif

Why should I trust anything of his? Why do you? Oh right..nevermind. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

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

Could you also say that Roger had the means, the motive, and the connections to make a real Bigfoot film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Please don't paraphrase me by changing what I said to denigrate me.

1. I did not say that Kitakaze was sounding loony. I was including both sides debating what is a flawed premise (including myself!). I said this discussion is sounding loony, not Kitakaze or any one person. Here is exactly what I said:

"Because it is a meaningless exercise, with no chance of victory, this all starts to seem a little loony"

My point in saying this is - ONE MORE TIME: that proving that it could have been a suit does not prove that it was.

2. I was never being the one saying I am right by putting my fingers in my ears, and not listening to what he has to say. I am hearing EVERY thing he says, and explaining why it is not possible for it to add up to a "hill of beans". I am explaining, multiple times, exactly why I say that.

3. My posts are not "diatribe" I am explaining my position succinctly, in quite a few less words than most on this thread. You don't refer to Kitakaze's posts as "diatribe".

Is it you that has your fingers in your ears when you read my posts?

Please stop trying to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger. It isn't flattering. I have not done that, I have examined the premise and questioned the motivation only. Kitakaze may be the best person I could ever meet, and I have never suggested that he is not.

Saying "Oooookay" to be condescending is not using logic and analysis. It is rather schoolyard, and its power to insult is truly over rated.

Edited by Harry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't need proof that Dfoot distorted his images. He was notorious for it. Bob H wouldn't fit into Patty without it.

BH_Dfoot_widened.gif

Why should I trust anything of his? Why do you? Oh right..nevermind. :D

Add to that the fact that Dfoot's little project directly contradicts the Heironomous claim (BH says there was no "underpadding" to the suit, IIRC).

Oh, and I LOVE how Dfoot included the Mugato, and a couple of crappy ape and bear suits in his insulting little "video"...none of which look even remotely like Patty.... :lol:

Edited by Mulder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Add to that the fact that Dfoot's little project directly contradicts the Heironomous claim (BH says there was no "underpadding" to the suit, IIRC).

Oh, and I LOVE how Dfoot included the Mugato, and a couple of crappy ape and bear suits in his insulting little "video"...none of which look even remotely like Patty.... :lol:

Here is an article I did when looking at the claims that Bob H had made.

http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

Since that time, Bob H. has made many contradictory statements to his previous ones. And the undeniable fact that his body index does not match that of the creature in the film puts the nail in his coffin. It amazes me that dispite how many lies he got caught making - some skeptics still wish to embrace his tale while had Patterson of done the same, they would then embrace those lies that the film is fake.

Go figure!

Bill

Bigfoot Field Research

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

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

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?

Yes, and that is exactly what he did. He considered it an investment. He was a shrewd businessman.......

OK Kit, let’s say I agree with you. De Atley was a 'shrewd businessman'. De Atley gave Roger the equivalent of one quarter of a million dollars 2011 money, before a penny had been made from the PGF.

You see what this points to, surely?

If De Atley had been funding Roger’s expeditions already, and funding a hoax film, he was already in. He was a fully paid up member of the cash grab club. There’s no way he had any reason to give Roger a king’s ransom! Sure, give him a tenth of the sum mentioned, or put him on a monthly handout, maybe.

Neither the De Atley’s nor anyone else ever got rich by handing out that sort of money for no reason,or just for gratitude or family feeling.

If De Atley gave Roger seventy five thousand dollars, he was buying into something he had no claim on. Something he knew was Roger’s, and was a solid prospect to succeed.

If seventy five thousand dollars was handed over to Roger, that points to the film being real, not hoaxed, and to De Atley buying his way in from the outside.

Fister

Edited by Fister Crunchman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Sorry if this has been previously mentioned, but my time is short ....

Patterson and Gimlin had been to Mount St. Helens and was called down to Bluff Creek because tracks had been being found. Upon arriving about three weeks later when Gimlin could arrange for the time to go .... the two men found nothing but old blob tracks. They spent the next three weeks riding the roads at night trying to find good tracks and rode horseback in the day so to stay out of the way of the operations going on at that time.

On the day of the film, Patterson had not only filmed a Sasquatch, but its trackway as well. Upon arriving at Willow Creek, Roger had made a call to try and get tracking dogs brought down to the film site. It wasn't until later that night that the rains came, which 'FORCED' the two men to pull out of the area, thus foiling the idea to track the creature they had encountered only the day before. Roger had asked Gimlin that if he (Roger) stayed behind to try and track the animal, then would Bob come back to get him. Gimlin, having been stuck flipping the bill so far had told Roger that he could stay, but he would have to find his own way back to Yakima. To this day, Gimlin has never been compensated for the fuel and expense money for the trip.

Here is a two frame stabilization of the creature as seen in the 1st generation B&W copy that Beckjord owned ...

122.gif

One of things that Morris mentioned was that the man who would fill the alleged suit would have to be really large because of the muscle bulk seen under the fur. Bob H. was a spindly legged well toned individual in those days, but nowhere near the girth Morris of the subject that Morris alluded to.

Bill

Bigfoot Field Research

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

kitakaze wrote:

Actually, the finger-bending is a major blow to Herionimus' "confession".

Patty's fingers bend at the last joint on the finger...

PattyFingerBendAG5Fade1.gif

Bob's arms are too short for his fingers to reach to the point where Patty's fingers are bending....so some type of device would have been necessary for Bob to cause that bending.

But Bob....in all of his "gut-spilling", has never once mentioned anything about any such device, in the "suit".

It's a missing 'insider detail', that simply would not be missing from someone who was truly inside. ;)

In addition to this image, showing Patty's arm hanging several inches away from the side of the leg...

PattyWidthFingerBendingAG1.gif

...in the animation above, Patty's hand does not turn sideways, as it would, if it were scraping the leg.

The fingers aren't bending as a result of scraping the leg....they're just bending....curling up....like fingers do, on occasion.

I was an active member of the previous forum. I never heard anything as detailed as what is being presented here about Patty being a suit, not a real animal. I'm shocked, humbled, but even if Patty is proven to be a fake of some sort, I still believe that there are unknown creatures wandering around in the woods. Too many people, including bad A** police officers, and Marines doing land nav training have had *encounters* with a BF type creature that scared the daylights out of them.

When I saw a police officer holding his weapon in his shaking hand due to his BF sighting, I believed that something had scared the hell out of him.

Why are there so many reports from non-believers who have encounters, and then report them, becoming believers because they saw it? How wrong can everyone be?

**Can we not trust our hunters, our policemen, and our soldiers, not to mention decent men and women who have had terrifying encounters with these non-existent creatures?**

Is everyone wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I was an active member of the previous forum. I never heard anything as detailed as what is being presented here about Patty being a suit, not a real animal. I'm shocked, humbled, but even if Patty is proven to be a fake of some sort, I still believe that there are unknown creatures wandering around in the woods. Too many people, including bad A** police officers, and Marines doing land nav training have had *encounters* with a BF type creature that scared the daylights out of them.

When I saw a police officer holding his weapon in his shaking hand due to his BF sighting, I believed that something had scared the hell out of him.

Why are there so many reports from non-believers who have encounters, and then report them, becoming believers because they saw it? How wrong can everyone be?

**Can we not trust our hunters, our policemen, and our soldiers, not to mention decent men and women who have had terrifying encounters with these non-existent creatures?**

Is everyone wrong?

Susiq2 - I think that the discussion here has been primarily on the subject of the film, if it can be proved it was possible to create it, and if yes or no, what impact would that have on the film itself, if any.

I think anyone would say that no matter the fate of this discussion or the film itself - the eyewitness reports stand on their own. They should be taken case by case, one by one, and considered carefully.

I will go on record saying that I know that Sasquatch is a true entity, from personal, first hand experience. But that doesn't really enter into this particular thread - about the film subject only. Some will say that this film is the foundation for the entire Sasquatch research phenomenon. But I can tell you that it isn't for those who have had personal experiences, like the people you describe.

So don't worry! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

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. :)

Is there anything there that can't be explained by matted hair? post-1055-004305100 1299103640_thumb.gif

Can someone color me a weird subducting thigh line so I'll be sure I know what I'm looking at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Susiq2 - I think that the discussion here has been primarily on the subject of the film, if it can be proved it was possible to create it, and if yes or no, what impact would that have on the film itself, if any.

I think anyone would say that no matter the fate of this discussion or the film itself - the eyewitness reports stand on their own. They should be taken case by case, one by one, and considered carefully.

I will go on record saying that I know that Sasquatch is a true entity, from personal, first hand experience. But that doesn't really enter into this particular thread - about the film subject only. Some will say that this film is the foundation for the entire Sasquatch research phenomenon. But I can tell you that it isn't for those who have had personal experiences, like the people you describe.

So don't worry! :)

Thank you Harry. You really are a sweetie :wub:

I have believed that the film was real ever since I first saw it. Now, in today's world, almost anything can be created, especially due to film animation.

That is why I asked the question, and also I wanted to know if it could even be created again today with the technology of that time.

The *nay sayers* have some interesting, and to me, valid points they make about faking this film. I did not know that Patterson's companion had trashed the film until I started hearing about it on this new forum. I don't remember ever seeing such any analysis done frame by frame as I have seen here posted by knowledgeable and very talented members who know how to do an analysis frame by frame, and also know what they are talking about in each discrepancy they locate or observe.

I do feel that some of us will never believe in PGF because Patterson's sidekick has found fame (and fortune?) by saying the film and Patty are fakes.

Bob did not make the money that Patterson did, correct?

Why was this?

Now is Bob living on fame by tearing apart the film, and is being paid to do so?

Edited by Susiq2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Is there anything there that can't be explained by matted hair? post-1055-004305100 1299103640_thumb.gif

Can someone color me a weird subducting thigh line so I'll be sure I know what I'm looking at?

The matted or missing hair claim comes from not understanding what the angle of reflection combined with motion blur when seen on an old time movie camera while using Kodachrome film. If one goes back and looks at some of the Cibachrome images .... they will see that the single of reflection of light during some of those exposures show a thick growth of non-matted hair. Bob H obviously didn't bother to study the film before making that 'Roger left patches of hair off the animal so to make it look like it was shedding' claim.

Bill

Bigfoot Field Research

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

<snip>I did not know that Patterson's companion had trashed the film until I started hearing about it on this new forum. I don't remember ever seeing such any analysis done frame by frame as I have seen here posted by knowledgeable and very talented members who know how to do an analysis frame by frame, and also know what they are talking about in each discrepancy they locate or observe.

I do feel that some of us will never believe in PGF because Patterson's sidekick has found fame (and fortune?) by saying the film and Patty are fakes.

Bob did not make the money that Patterson did, correct?

Why was this?

Now is Bob living on fame by tearing apart the film, and is being paid to do so?

Which Bob are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

I said elsewhere that my opinion about Patty changes daily - today I'm about 51 % on the hoax side. :D I can totally see what Giganto and kit describe about the gloves/the human arm showing through.

- Shake

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...