Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Are We Able To Recreate Pgf Today?

Recommended Posts

Guest gershake

One point that kit does have in my opinion is that it's possibly not that it can't but recreated but that not many have tried so far, due to a general lack of interest in the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Of course, Green recalling particulars of a camera used are not the same as any of the pricipals admitting hoaxing, but let's roll with that.

Just out of curiosity and speaking hypothetically, if Patty Patterson were to admit a hoax, should she have to know exactly how it was done? If so, why?

Excellent. You've established more than one look back then? And you've established Patterson bailed and filmed from his elbows and stomach? You've established that Patterson was running like hell, jumping logs, and going up into real thick brush? You've established that Patty started running while still in sight?

Are the plaster pour scenes no consistent with the beginning of October? Is the foliage in the Patty scene not inconsistent with late October? The PGF shows a subject with a subducting thigh line, a diaper butt, a head shaped like an oldtime, what looks just like football shoulder pads, and in a cibachrome I clearly made out what looks exactly like a glass eye, so I definitely disagree.

I have a huge question:

Where is the BF suit? Why has it not been revealed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Finally, my point worked! I did not award the point for this post, but another, but you still have a point. Congrats! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have a huge question:

Where is the BF suit? Why has it not been revealed?

If there were a BF suit, why has Bob Gimlin(SP?) not revealed it?

He could make a fortune with the proof of a hoax, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

Because Bob Gimlin doesn't have the suit. :)

Susi I'm not sure whether you are aware of this but there is two Bobs in this story:

There is Bob Gimlin, who is the man who was with Roger Patterson when they shot the PGF. He says they photographed a real bigfoot.

And there is Bob Heironimus, who is the man who says the film was a hoax and that he was the person in the suit. (They're both still alive by the way, Roger Patterson is dead.)

So if someone were to reveal a suit, it would be Bob Heironimus. Bob Gimlin says there was no suit.

- Shake :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest demon

I have a huge question:

Where is the BF suit? Why has it not been revealed?

in patricia's loft sealed in an air tight bag lol waiting ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze wrote:

Well, here are a couple of views of Patty, from directly behind.

In the first few frames of this animation...Patty's arm appears to be several inches away from the side of her right thigh...but, then it appears to come closer to the thigh...

PattyWalkingAwayAG10Fade1B.gif

On a side note....it's interesting that, in the last few frames...Patty's right leg seems to move inwards, towards the center....as it swings forward.

It's a detail which is consistent with the left and right footprints of the trackway being nearly in-line.

This image shows a little more of the arm. It appears a little further away from the leg than it is, in some other Frames....because Patty's right leg is swung forward, and to the left...

PattyRVArm1.jpg

It's hard to say, with certainty, that Patty's fingers couldn't have brushed against the side of her leg...but it looks to me, from this rear view, that her arm is a little too far away from the leg...(laterally)...for her fingers to have contacted the leg.

But as far as her fingers bending...the fact remains that her hand doesn't turn, in the slightest....as it should, if it were being brushed by a leg moving forward.

The fingers simply curl/bend.

SweatyYeti,

Sorry, I used my daily plus for Bills post(just figurin' the plus thin' out, ha ! ha !) But here..."+" !

I also agree with you. I don't believe the hand touches the thigh, as in most frames, the elbow seems to be positioned out an away from the torso, in my opinion.

Regardin' the subjects right leg movin' inwards a little, does the entire body not seem to move to the left ? Look at other points such as the median furrow/spine or outer edge of right delt etc. Might be due to direction of travel ? Or...it may very well have somethin' ta do with subjects footprints fallin' in a straighter line than ours, as they appear ta do.

Nice post just the same. I like your work ! Good Stuff !

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Pat & Sweati:

The hand does brush the thigh, in the look back. I've seen it's effect on the fur, in motion.

But keep in mind that during the look back, Patty has turned while walking, and that changes the way the arm hangs or swings in relation to the body, because we sometimes pull the arm inward to make a pivoting turn more efficient.

So the arm posture as you illustrated is correct, for that phase of the walk, but may be different for the look back, and we don't have a front/back view to confirm.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I think you are making a mistake in comparing Patty to a body builder. I'm sure you already know this, but men who are legitimately strong often do have a lot of bulk on their bodies.

It is possible to be physically strong and have some fat. Those guys you see in the Mr Universe competitions aren't actually all that strong, many of them starve themselves and take steroids to look they way they do.

I don't think Patty would have access to a gym or steroids, so I think she'd fit into the strongman (or strongwoman, if you prefer) category

tl:dr Stongman= actual physical strength Mr Universe= aesthetics

Here are some pictures for comparison-

tcmom23023986.jpg A strongman

arnoldschwarzeneggerroi.jpg Arnie

The guy at the top probably is stronger than Arnie, even if he doesn't look it :)

I'm just trying to clarify what you meant when you said "ripped like a body builder" ;)

ThePattyArcade,

I agree with you regardin' kitakaze comparin' the subject to a ripped bodybuilder, I don't know where he came up with the ripped idea? There is a clear difference between massive an ripped. Bodybuilders bulk up(eat massive calories) in order to get massive, then diet(etc.) to get ripped for compitions, most of the year they are simply massive in appearcance...not ripped (an near death). Findin' a ripped powerlifter or strongman wouldn't be the norm., strength comes with mass.

As for Arnold, he was actually quite strong back in the day. He got as big as he did because he was one of those who relied on heavy powerliftin' exercises.

I see absolutely nothin' wrong with the subjects arm. Then again...I don't see incredible details in the subjects eye(let alone a eye).

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

Arnold Schwarzenegger was actually young once...? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Pat & Sweati:

The hand does brush the thigh, in the look back. I've seen it's effect on the fur, in motion.

But keep in mind that during the look back, Patty has turned while walking, and that changes the way the arm hangs or swings in relation to the body, because we sometimes pull the arm inward to make a pivoting turn more efficient.

So the arm posture as you illustrated is correct, for that phase of the walk, but may be different for the look back, and we don't have a front/back view to confirm.

Bill

Bill,

I've never seen it before, but will spend some time lookin' again. Maybe one of our knowledgable computer folks could post a gif of the look back enlarged or zoomed in, to show the area better. Durin' the look back, the elbow may actually get pulled further away from torso an to the rear more, with the turnin' motion itself. Interestin', I'll look again Bill.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Really?? Almost ALL of Us must have missed that.

Showing that the PGF could have been faked does not prove that it's fake (That's a 'duh'). But, that would make it less likely to be real because:

The main reason it is likely to be real is because it looks real and because it has never been recreated to any extent beyond that which is laughable. If the CC "recreation", the Blevins suit or, the silly looking Gorilla/Bigfoot suits from the era are an integral part of any hoax theory then, that won't cut it.

If it looks real (and, it does) and it cannot be shown to have been "hoaxable", after many attempts and for decades, then it is likely not to be a hoax. That is plain and simple logic.

You may say that my sentence (which you paraphrased above - but I promised that I would not post again once kitakaze agreed that it was true, so I won't) is, as you say "That's a 'duh'". But, it was very important to establish kitakaze as confirming that he does, indeed, agree that it is true.

In the future, he must present additional confirming evidence that is NOT the suit re-creation in order to do what he claims he will - to "prove" that the PGF was a hoax.

He must do this by his own admission. Evidence that is either documentation in nature (to the level of "court admissible"), a taped confession by one of the identified principals (not Bob H. or Phillip M.), or he must produce all or part of the actual screen-used suit, that can be verified through video comparison.

He can not rely on his re-creation of the suit as proof any longer, in fact - I venture to say that a suit re-creation may have the biggest cost-to-meaningless ratio of any part of this exercise.

We may not need his acknowledgment of my sentence being FACT now, but we will have it in the future IF a suit recreation is attempted to be put forth as PROOF of a hoax.

(Just to explain what I was doing to anyone who pretended not to notice.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Harry, you can rest easy. When I began the process of the documentary project, I had no plans for a suit recreation. PGF believers kept telling me that I needed to do a recreation, and that the film would be incomplete without one. I wasn't interested because I have no experience in suit making. My friendship with Phil Morris, however, made it possible for me to undertake the effort, and I decided to do it.

If I don't do it, I am criticized. If I do it I am criticized. I am fine with it.

Can't win for losing in Bigfootery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

From the BCM thread..

Let's see. American Paranormal went with a skeletal overlay. Excellent. Let's do that...

We can discuss it further in the PGF section.

Riddle me this Kit. Since we've established that Bob's hands were not in the gloves..wait for it..how come they ARE in the skeleton overlays? Wouldn't that mean that the skeletons did NOT have the same arm lengths? Isn't that cheating?

Seriously, it's time to put those skeleton overlays to bed. They are useless for determining whether Patty had human proportions. Only unforshortened body parts can be compared this way (maximums). And because they weren't overlaid "exactly" (why not?), I assume they couldn't be. It baffles me that they are still used to show Patty had Bob's proportions, when they actually show the opposite. :wacko:

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...