Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Are We Able To Recreate Pgf Today?

Recommended Posts

Guest

The only method where skeleton overlays can measure body proportions is how VisionRealm did it. I'm not saying they did it right, but they used the correct methodology. Approximate a 3D model of Patty and overlay the skeletons precisely over as many frames as possible. If the model can't be made to fit exactly for every frame, adjust your model and try again. Hopefully, there will be frames where each body part is at a maximum (unforeshortened). When the model fits all the frames exactly, you're done. Unless the skeleton overalys were used this way, they can't tell you anything.

More bad news Kit..

armlength3b.png

Superimposing Bob's arm length on Patty puts his elbow at the top red dot. However, Patty has demonstrated that her elbow is located at the bottom dot. This even assumes that Bob has the same girth as Patty, otherwise, Bob's elbow would be located considerably higher.

Doesn't look like much but it is. If you have their scales correct, then this one bites Bob in the diaper butt. Bob's elbow is fixed and even though we gave him the benefit of the doubt (girthwise) his humerus STILL comes up short. This isn't about sticks in the gloves, this one has serious ramifications. :o

Thoughts?

ETA: Patty's baggy sleeve is hair on her forearm. If anything Roger went all out creating an intricate hair pattern on the suit. The head, shoulders, forearms all have elaborate hair patterns, which IMO is pretty impressive for a rank amateur suitmaker.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

kitakaze - not at all, no criticism here. I was establishing that a suit re-creation would not be put forth as evidence of a hoax. I would not criticize you for attempting the re-creation (or not attempting it!), in fact it would probably be very interesting as an aside to any actual evidence.

As a start, we can establish categories in to which your forthcoming evidence can be placed:

1. Documentation (original unaltered paper or film - both still or video)

2. Recorded testimony of an established principal to the event. (Only Bob G. at this time, unless something falling into category one is shown to corroborate an additional principal. Possible exception, Patricia Patterson, by proxy, although it still would be considered second hand information)

3. A piece or entire screen worn suit that can be shown through comparison to the film to be indisputably the subject in the PGF film.

Are there any evidence categories that I am missing?

When your evidence is presented, we will categorize it and give it a fair and objective consideration. Of course, as always pieces of evidence which validate each other are always good.

Thank you. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Harry, if you would accept that Bob Gimlin was present when Patty was filmed, you are accepting anecdotal evidence. A confession can come from him, from Patricia, from DeAtley, from Roger's sons or daughter, from places you have not thought of. It can come in a form you never expect. A suit could come right out of Patricia's attic and be so moth-eaten, you couldn't do anything with it without it falling to pieces. If Roger was a truly thorough hoaxer, he would have destroyed the suit, but Roger made many blunders whether you think he hoaxed the film or not.

I predict that the will to believe Patty is so powerful that both a suit and a confession would be denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

What do opponents think the thing I marked in yellow is? Surely it's not her thumb? Looks like it could be Bob's hand to me.

armlength3b.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Harry, if you would accept that Bob Gimlin was present when Patty was filmed, you are accepting anecdotal evidence. A confession can come from him, from Patricia, from DeAtley, from Roger's sons or daughter, from places you have not thought of. It can come in a form you never expect. A suit could come right out of Patricia's attic and be so moth-eaten, you couldn't do anything with it without it falling to pieces. If Roger was a truly thorough hoaxer, he would have destroyed the suit, but Roger made many blunders whether you think he hoaxed the film or not.

I predict that the will to believe Patty is so powerful that both a suit and a confession would be denied.

First - I said "established principal". Others would need, as I pointed out - corroborating evidence from category one to prove they were present.

Second - Do not say that evidence would be rejected of the type you are not planning to bring forth. Are you planning a Patricia confession and a suit used in the film? If not your comment is not relevant.

Third - you are already mitigating the value of any evidence you bring forth.

Fourth - you didn't address my question - is this the extent of the possible categories of evidence?

Please focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

First - I said "established principal". Others would need, as I pointed out - corroborating evidence from category one to prove they were present.

I think kit's point is, how is Bob Gimlin an established principal? There's no proof he was there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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 :)

:blush: I'm so sorry, and embarrassed because I did not realize that there were more than one Bob. I wondered about your question, and why you asked which Bob, when I only knew of one Bob (until today) being involved with the PGF.

Now I am up to date, thanks to you. :D

I wonder what I'll discover next as to how out of touch I am about the PGF, and the true or not true/faked film and who and how many people were involved with said PGF, fake or not.Yikes. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

I wondered about your question, and why you asked which Bob

That wasn't me. You're welcome anyhow. :D

- Shake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

:blush: I'm so sorry, and embarrassed because I did not realize that there were more than one Bob. I wondered about your question, and why you asked which Bob, when I only knew of one Bob (until today) being involved with the PGF.

Now I am up to date, thanks to you. :D

I wonder what I'll discover next as to how out of touch I am about the PGF, and the true or not true/faked film and who and how many people were involved with said PGF, fake or not.Yikes. :huh:

No one is born knowing all this stuff. You're in for a great adventure as you look into it more deeply. I recommend books by Green, Bayanov, Dahinden, Murphy, Krantz and Meldrum and even Greg Long. Have fun!

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.

Harry, :wub: You are my newest hero! You have expressed what I've been trying to say ever since I started this topic. I have almost cried when looking at the evidence presented here against the PGF. I have believed since childhood that it was real. I remember sitting on my dad's lap while he talked about the film because it had scared me. I though that BF would break into our home and hurt us. I was young, but daddy reassured me that all BFs were no where near us, but lived far away, and for me to realize that they were more afraid of us than we were of them. My daddy believed in BF. He had some sort of encounter that he kept very quiet about due to his position in the world of academia.He also had a UFO encounter while with one of his students. They both kept quiet about it.

The posters here have some very convincing evidence against the film.

Then I read the posts that support the film. I am at the point to where I believe with some reservations, AGAIN! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

Trust me, the longer these discussions go back and forth, the more of a fencesitter one becomes. :D When I joined this forum, everything I knew about BF was from the BFRO so I was convinced that the PGF was real. Now I change my opinion almost weekly or so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No one is born knowing all this stuff. You're in for a great adventure as you look into it more deeply. I recommend books by Green, Bayanov, Dahinden, Murphy, Krantz and Meldrum and even Greg Long. Have fun!

Thank you, I appreciate your advice. I'm going to purchase some books and not just rely on TV shows and our posters, even tho I truly believe that we have many **experts** here on the forums. I stand humbly in their presence because these people have walked the walk, talked the talk, and have experience searching for this creature.

Which books would you recommend as more important to read for a first time reader of Bferty?

I would truly like to know which one or two books would give me a decent foundation in the history, evidence, and how searches are collecting evidence for or against BF.

Please recommend a beginners manual. :unsure: I'm afraid of becoming afraid(of running into BF) to conduct searches when the weather warms up here in Kentucky.

Edited by Susiq2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What do opponents think the thing I marked in yellow is? Surely it's not her thumb? Looks like it could be Bob's hand to me.

armlength3b.png

Unshaved forearm of a Morris gorilla suit. Not. ;)

ahandgif.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That's quite a turnaround. Doesn't it assure that his documentary will be DOA? I hope he hasn't spent the big bucks on it yet.

Is there a new documentary coming out against the PGF, or just about the lack of evidence we have, or will it support the footprints and anecdotal evidence we do have?

When will it be shown? Do you have dates for the program?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

I still have no idea what it is (if Patty is real). The end of the radius? The trapezium (which would be huge)? An odd hair clump?

EDIT: That was re Giganto's last post, which I mistook for a PBeaton post. So you do think it's hair, Giganto?

Edited by gershake

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...