Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Theagenes

Dfoot's Theories On The Pgf As A Hoax

Recommended Posts

Guest

^How do you know the suit is in Yakima?

..and Dfoot is disdained for trying to shed light on the hoax any way he could crack the nuts..

:D Did you actually type that? AHA, proof that you ARE indeed Dfoot! Kit mentioned he was collaborating with Dfoot to create a suit with Morris for his documentary. Where has Dfoot been? Instead we get Kitakaze/Tontar -> Kemosabe/Tonto. Coincidence Tontar?..if that is your real name. ;)

Paranoid & Bitter

GF

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

I'm Dfoot or his disciple? Seriously? :lol:

His theories make sense---that's all. So far he's the only one I've seen that has come up with a good explanation for the problems I have with the PGF, like the thigh line and diaper butt. And it's an explantion that takes into account the level of costume technology at the time. I don't think he nailed it completely, but it looks to me like he was on the right track.

I'm about to start looking up the old posts from Chris Walas now. From what I gathered his ideas are similar to Dfoot's, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

How do you know the suit is in Yakima?

Hey, you did the math, you were the first to proclaim that it was there. I'm trusting that you did your homework well enough to make such a conclusion. Are you now suggesting some other conclusion? You wouldn't want to steer the search away from the suit so that it gets lost forever again, would you? Bill knows where it is, he is working closely with Kit to figure out a plan to access the suit, so unless you have some other formula that you prefer over your previous one, or unless Bill says your conclusion is wrong, I'll be happy to take your word and Bill's lack of a denial as an adequate conclusion.

:D Did you actually type that?

It appears that I did.

AHA, proof that you ARE indeed Dfoot!

Ah, dang, another aha moment. I always feel so humiliated when I get aha'd in public.

Kit mentioned he was collaborating with Dfoot to create a suit with Morris for his documentary.

Did he? Hmm, I must have missed that proclamation. I recall seeing something about him considering working with this person, that person, and another person for his documentary. I think Bill may have even been on that list, but I could be wrong. Then again, he seems to have turned the project over to Bill anyway, so maybe Bill will clarify if he will now e working with Dfoot to make a suit, since Dfoot seems like he was more capable of getting to the heart of the matter and went straight to making a pretty reasonable looking Patty suit from the tiny peeks at it so far.

Where has Dfoot been? Instead we get Kitakaze/Tontar -> Kemosabe/Tonto.

Wow, there seems to be no end to the conspiracy theories here in the forums. Tell me, is that an inherent part of the belief in bigfoot, a requirement to be suspicious, paranoid and always suspecting conspiracies? Along with the irresistible need to belittle people and their names? can you point to a time where I poked ridicule at your name? I doubt it, I think your handle is pretty cool, in fact. What's your problem with mine?

Coincidence Tontar?..if that is your real name.

Coincidence? Not that I'm aware of, but conspiracy theorists can make anything work into their matrix if they so desire. Is that the case here? Trying to flesh out a theory? Trying to make up yet another mythological concoction to brighten the dreary, bigfoot-less days? Why go looking to solve the mystery of bigfoot when it's so much easier to poke fun and insults at other people.

Paranoid & Bitter

Clearly. So let me ask you, why is it that so many bigfoot people have such a chip on their shoulders? Shouldn't bigfoot be a fun subject, an honorable hobby, a respectable pursuit? So why all the negativity in the community? Why are so many people such ankle biters?

GF

By the way, I can't seem to get an answer about Jeff Glickman. You're a photogrammetrist, do you know him? Is he a member of this forum? I am curious because it was his research that claimed Patty was a big, tall, heavy weight giant, yet your photogrammetry work seems to conflict with it, and I'm curious what you think about the two competing conclusions. You say that photogrammetry is a science and should reveal consistent, unambiguous results, yet apparently two different photogrammetrists come up with strikingly different conclusions. Can you explain that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

@Theagenes: Let's say Chris was something of an inspiration to Dfoot after Dfoot effectively took his ideas apart. Dfoot realized how easy it would be (after talking with someone whose name I don't recall) and set out to prove it.

His tirades were pretty over-the-top. At one point I told Dfoot he missed his calling; he should have been a fiction writer.

IIRC (and sometimes I don't), his doctored pictures were exposed several posts after their posting. I almost recall the poster's name. I'd know the avatar anywhere. I was a hairless face of Patty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hey, you did the math, you were the first to proclaim that it was there. I'm trusting that you did your homework well enough to make such a conclusion. Are you now suggesting some other conclusion? You wouldn't want to steer the search away from the suit so that it gets lost forever again, would you? Bill knows where it is, he is working closely with Kit to figure out a plan to access the suit, so unless you have some other formula that you prefer over your previous one, or unless Bill says your conclusion is wrong, I'll be happy to take your word and Bill's lack of a denial as an adequate conclusion.

I didn't do any homework, I just guessed. Since when do you accept my guesswork as the truth?

It appears that I did.

I suppose doctored data is ok with you..as long as it cracks a few nuts.

Did he? Hmm, I must have missed that proclamation. I recall seeing something about him considering working with this person, that person, and another person for his documentary. I think Bill may have even been on that list, but I could be wrong. Then again, he seems to have turned the project over to Bill anyway, so maybe Bill will clarify if he will now e working with Dfoot to make a suit, since Dfoot seems like he was more capable of getting to the heart of the matter and went straight to making a pretty reasonable looking Patty suit from the tiny peeks at it so far.

Here's 1 reference after a quick search.

Leroy Blevins, Phil Morris, and Jeff Pruitt all used methods and materials available in 1967. To do otherwise would have made the efforts pointless. This is the most basic consideration in such an undertaking and it's surprising that you might conclude otherwise. The entire reason Phil Morris ended up having a colour that didn't match Patty is because he had to contact a friend at National Fabric to send him dynel which was no longer in wide use as it was in the 60's and 70's. He was told what he was being sent was dark brown. What costs $242 now would be $37 in 1967. $37 was something Roger Patterson and Al DeAtley could afford. The suit Roger bought from Phil and Amy Morris was $435 at the time. And no, having bought the suit doesn't necessitate it was the one used. This has yet to be shown conclusively one way or the other. The reason Jeff Pruitt did not continue working on his suit is that he was financing everything by himself and had to put the project off because of other priorities in his life. These things do happen, I'm sure you'll allow. Jeff has, however, agreed to assist me when I undertake my own effort so that I can mirror the success he had with his recreation work. And yes, of course, using only methods and materials available in 1967.

Wow, there seems to be no end to the conspiracy theories here in the forums. Tell me, is that an inherent part of the belief in bigfoot, a requirement to be suspicious, paranoid and always suspecting conspiracies? Along with the irresistible need to belittle people and their names? can you point to a time where I poked ridicule at your name? I doubt it, I think your handle is pretty cool, in fact. What's your problem with mine?

I was just obliging you by being paranoid & conspiratorial. (I faked the bitterness tho).

Coincidence? Not that I'm aware of, but conspiracy theorists can make anything work into their matrix if they so desire. Is that the case here? Trying to flesh out a theory? Trying to make up yet another mythological concoction to brighten the dreary, bigfoot-less days? Why go looking to solve the mystery of bigfoot when it's so much easier to poke fun and insults at other people.

Wasn't trying to insult you. I don't recall calling you any names or making fun of your name. I just find the Kitakaze/Tontar Kemosabe/Tonto thing amusing. So what was/is your relationship with Kit?

Clearly. So let me ask you, why is it that so many bigfoot people have such a chip on their shoulders? Shouldn't bigfoot be a fun subject, an honorable hobby, a respectable pursuit? So why all the negativity in the community? Why are so many people such ankle biters?

Why..why..why? - Nancy Kerrigan

By the way, I can't seem to get an answer about Jeff Glickman. You're a photogrammetrist, do you know him? Is he a member of this forum? I am curious because it was his research that claimed Patty was a big, tall, heavy weight giant, yet your photogrammetry work seems to conflict with it, and I'm curious what you think about the two competing conclusions. You say that photogrammetry is a science and should reveal consistent, unambiguous results, yet apparently two different photogrammetrists come up with strikingly different conclusions. Can you explain that?

Already answered here.

IIRC (and sometimes I don't), his doctored pictures were exposed several posts after their posting. I almost recall the poster's name. I'd know the avatar anywhere. I was a hairless face of Patty.

Posters name was "peiltch", a talented artist with a keen eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Orygun

This was a good read. A lot of rumors and denial. Nothing conclusive. There's still nothing tying Patterson to Hollywood that I've read yet. The impression is that the makeup artists were not unfamiliar with "non-movie work" and especially keeping secrets... even to the grave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

His theories make sense---that's all. So far he's the only one I've seen that has come up with a good explanation for the problems I have with the PGF, like the thigh line and diaper butt. And it's an explantion that takes into account the level of costume technology at the time. I don't think he nailed it completely, but it looks to me like he was on the right track.

Can you give a brief synopsis of dfoot's theories on the thigh line and diaper butt? This thread seemed devoted to his ban and his attempts to link Roger to various Hollywood creature artists.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Here's more on Dfoot. It covers his photo "experiment", or hoax as it's being called. Which is not what I was praising him for earlier (saying I was okay with doctored data). I was praising him for taking on the task of actually building a suit to see if it was possible. I think that is a worthy endeavor.

But about a quarter of the way down the page linked, you can see his version of the timeline, which is another reason he had detractors. His version of the timeline, which he claimed was the easiest to make all aspects fit without conflicts, establishes the PGF as a hoax. It covers his idea of how it was accomplished.

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-53332.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

Here's more on Dfoot. It covers his photo "experiment", or hoax as it's being called. Which is not what I was praising him for earlier (saying I was okay with doctored data). I was praising him for taking on the task of actually building a suit to see if it was possible. I think that is a worthy endeavor.

But about a quarter of the way down the page linked, you can see his version of the timeline, which is another reason he had detractors. His version of the timeline, which he claimed was the easiest to make all aspects fit without conflicts, establishes the PGF as a hoax. It covers his idea of how it was accomplished.

http://forums.randi....hp/t-53332.html

Blah Blah Blah. Ill say it again as I have on other PGF threads. You show me using 1967 materials how it was supposedly faked. YOU CANT !! otherwise every conjecture and theories about time lines and such dont amount to anything but conjecture and guesses. All you skeptics conveniently side step the core of the film. You cant re duplicate waht the film portrays!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Dfoot was one of the top all-time crusaders for the 'PGf as a Hoax' dream but, that ain't sayin' much. His fake images were called out for what they are and his arguments were debunked. On BFF1, we were shown a limited talent for making Creature suits, a pretty good knowledge of photoshop and the gift of gab. It was all for naught, of course and, the PGf remained as undebunked as ever. : B

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Here's more on Dfoot. It covers his photo "experiment", or hoax as it's being called. Which is not what I was praising him for earlier (saying I was okay with doctored data). I was praising him for taking on the task of actually building a suit to see if it was possible. I think that is a worthy endeavor.

But about a quarter of the way down the page linked, you can see his version of the timeline, which is another reason he had detractors. His version of the timeline, which he claimed was the easiest to make all aspects fit without conflicts, establishes the PGF as a hoax. It covers his idea of how it was accomplished.

http://forums.randi....hp/t-53332.html

Dfoot states: "The official story is that Patterson was in the Bluff Creek area in September briefly and returned in October with Gimlin upon hearing about new tracks."

I haven't heard of Patterson going there in September. I've heard of him going earlier in the summer and casting 9" tracks, and then showing Hodgson those tracks, but not in September.

Dfoot states: "The odd thing about the call is the fact that HODGSON had already told GREEN that ROGER was planning a trip down there. But this doesn’t really fit the timeline of when HODGSON called PATTERSON to tell him about the prints and Patterson and Gimlin claimed they had no plans to go to California. How did Hodgson know to tell Green Roger was coming before Roger supposedly knew anything of these tracks or made any plans to see them?"

Roger actually told Hodgson that he had been wanting to come down to California- not that he already had plans. Big difference. This is why Roger wasn't there to view the BCM tracks and didn't get there until a month later.

Dfoot's idea that Roger made the BCM tracks as a setup for the PGF makes no sense. Why would he then use a completely different shape and size foot for Patty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Dfoot was one of the top all-time crusaders for the 'PGf as a Hoax' dream but, that ain't sayin' much. His fake images were called out for what they are and his arguments were debunked. On BFF1, we were shown a limited talent for making Creature suits, a pretty good knowledge of photoshop and the gift of gab. It was all for naught, of course and, the PGf remained as undebunked as ever. : B

Nice rewrite of history, but that's nothing new I suppose. Dfoot showed several examples of how Patty could have been made, as he was challenged to do. He did a good job of it. And now, with him banned, it's easy to claim his examples were failures. You've answered your own question with your twisting of past events. You challenge me to prove what I say, just as Dfoot was challenged, and others before and in between. When people do prove it, you claim it is a failure, even when the success of the experiment is staring you in the face. You say "prove that hip subduction could be a thigh and butt pad problem". Dfoot does just that, and the response? Read the past week's posts, people claiming he doctored each and every frame of his video showing exactly what he was challenged to show! He cheated, doctored the images, distorted it, it's fake, he's a liar, always the same reactions to stuff that cuts way too close to the bone.

You want me to make a Patty suit that looks as good as Patty? I say I could do it for $500 last year, but why bother? The moment I do, all hell would break open. I would be banned for some outlandish reason, no doubt about that. The suit would be called out as nothing like Patty, not at all realistic looking, not convincing, a total fail, lalalalalalala, hands over the ears and all of that. You want to know why nobody bothers to take proponents up on those kinds of challenges? Because it isn't worth it. The challenges are not sincere at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Reminds of a quote by Slick Willy:

"Pessimism is an excuse for not trying and a guarantee to a personal failure."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John

I have to say I fully understand Tontar's reasoning Rogue'. I've seen it time and again in varying forms over the last 10 years. I personally would no longer consider putting in any considerable time and effort only to be slapped down by folks whose minds were already made up.

The same old arguments circle around and around. Score a sceptical plus and the goalposts just get pulled up and moved.

Old creature suits that spectacularly pre-date the PGF are presented and in some cases display a vastly superior range of dynamic movement compared to what we see in the PGF, but they are 'not Patty' for----- (insert reason of choice to dismiss here).

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Familiar lines of dismissal are repeated ad infinitum to such an extent it really wears you down after a while :lol: . EDIT - But then maybe that's the whole point....

Edited by John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Why would anyone making a Patty suit worry about what the proponents thought unless you were doing it to cram down their throats? You should be making it for your peers. If you get caught-up in the proponent/opponent thing, then you are in for frustrating burn out. Neither side will ever budge on ANY issue from speculation alone. You need facts. It's like the Dems & the Reps agreeing on anything. Haven't you figured that one out by now? :)

This "why bother" finishing my Patty suit because the proponents already have their minds made up is pure bunk. Not finishing what you claim you started is just an admission of defeat. Why should a debunker be taken seriously when they never back up anything they claim? Dfoot came closer than most, but ultimately succumbed to debunker burn out. He couldn't crack the nuts. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...