Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Patty Suit Actually Glued Fur?

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

Patterson to Gimlin: "I got it! Let's glue hair on a subject and then film it walking"

Gimlin to Patterson: "OK, great idea, now all we need to do is find a 7 foot woman who weighs 600 pounds who will let us glue her from head to toe-naked"

Patterson and Gimlin: (together) GENIUS!!!!

 

 

Love it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

Patterson: " lets call munnzie for help." ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Wait the secret to the PGF is at last exposed.  P&G got Bill to make the suit.........no wait Bill was still a student.........Stanley Kubrick perhaps..........Mother Nature?  Hmmmm this Mother Nature possibility has legs.  Mom Nat I understand is real good at making animals coverend in fur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Although we have fun poking fun at the concept, The glue fur thing is actually one of the most important points of the PFG.  When you look at the PGF and you see the muscle movements in the legs it points to a creature of nature.

 

1)  in order to do this a suit maker has yet to pull off this effect.

2)  if hair was glued to a person (very impractical) then it opens up so many other Q (how tall was she? Did they glue hair all over her?)

3)  How practical or even possible would it have been in 1967 to pull such a feat off?

4) Did they find a 7 foot tall wolf girl from the circus with a body hair condition and have her walk in the film?

 

When you realize even today you don't see anyone gluing fur on legs and then walking to show such patty like movements, then we are left to the idea it Could be done.  Those who doubt the film then just come up with 'it could be glued fur' and we are suppose to just take that as a reasonable solution without any type of proof of a demonstration on their part.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SoFla

When the people trying to prove a hoax have to work that much harder than those who aren't, I don't know but to me,  that just says something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

When the people trying to prove a hoax have to work that much harder than those who aren't, I don't know but to me,  that just says something

I agree. I feel that the Nay sayers should have the burden of proof also. My purpose of starting this topic was to get expert opinions (Bill) to prove my co-worker wrong. My friend pointed out that even at an expert opinion is still an opinion, just like his opinion that it is a fake. Even if it is a slight possibility, that's enough evidence for him that it is fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I agree. I feel that the Nay sayers should have the burden of proof also. 

 

 

'Nay-sayers' only have a 'burden of proof', apgrok, if they want others to accept their thoughts as being the truth of the matter.

 

But, nobody is under any obligation to support anything they say, on this Forum. If a skeptic wants to say he thinks, or "knows", that the PGF is a hoax....that is fine, for him/her. As I recently said to dmaker...unsupported opinions don't mean much, to me. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I've also heard by the wayside that Bob Titmus' taxidermy skills may or may not have played a part in the sheen of the creature.

 

Would that rumor of originated with you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Would that rumor have originated with you? 

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

No.

 

 

Well .... without a source, then it is just a rumor and you are the one who posted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shelly

  glue-on fur had been around for some time (The Wolfman came out in 1941).

Yeah and gluing on the Yak hair used for Lon Chaney Jr.s transformation took forever.  That is also why he wears a shirt and pants in the movie... it took hours just to do his face.  Also in later movies, he wore a rubber mask.  There are a couple offtakes showing him without the furry gloves and without the black makeup around his eyes too so the mask is obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I love the hit and run these people make on the PGF.  A quick comment they think is some kind of Gotcha.   Then, when you address it with facts (and most of the time the point they bring up actually strengthens the PGF)  they run away.  The scary thing is they really think the point they made somehow was brilliant.

 

I love to actually have dialog with people I don't agree with, that is how we learn.  But the Nanny nanny boo boo defense just doesn't cut it.

 

Backdoc.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

'Nay-sayers' only have a 'burden of proof', apgrok, if they want others to accept their thoughts as being the truth of the matter.

 

But, nobody is under any obligation to support anything they say, on this Forum. If a skeptic wants to say he thinks, or "knows", that the PGF is a hoax....that is fine, for him/her. As I recently said to dmaker...unsupported opinions don't mean much, to me. :)

 

It does not appear that the nay-sayers have the burden of proof to me. It seems that a lot of people have done alot of work and analysis to prove the PG film is real, while the nay-sayers  sit back, chuckle and say "fake." They should have the burden of proof, but don't seem to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

and why don't they seem to have the burden of proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Smoke and mirrors tactics. They try to control the dialogue to distort real science.

 

Real science will say, in essence, the PGF has something in the film that walks away from the camera. What Is It?

 

Any determination which attempts to answer that question ("What is it?") must be accomplished with a rigorous scientific proof.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...