Jump to content
Guest

Bill Munns' Pgf Presentation From The Texas Bigfoot Conference

Recommended Posts

Backdoc

Pbeaton,

 

You might be right but what i am referring to is the early part of the film.  To me in the early part of the film that is what is looks like to me.   Now early on in the film pattys arms are more hanging down for the first several steps with less sense of urgency in the walking.  There is less arm swing. at some point in there there area few frames where the walk seems more arms close to the body.  Later in the patty turn by the way, it sure looks to me there is a little more sense of urgency in the walk and with that it also seems patty is on less stable ground.  I say this with no evidence at all mind you just it seems there is more of a drop down of patty to me about the time of the famous look back.  With that famous look back there just seems to me to be more of a drop down of the right leg.  THat is when we can see more muscle contractions of the right leg and some has observed what they even think is a damaged area of patty's leg (that i have little opinion on at this time).    It just looks like that to me in my observation of the enhanced early part of the film.  In fact, it is in the enhanced version that we finally see patty does look back.   

 

It just looks that way to me.  Now later where detail is greater and that is when Bill  Munns if highlighting it in his Texas Bigfoot presentation, that is more of a clear case.  I am 100% agreement with Bill on that one but there could be other reasons for the light and dark and so on.  Either way, I don't think it is a man in a suit.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Backdoc,

 

We agree...not a man in a suit !    

 

:drinks:

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Pat I still say if we could resolve the resolution issue on the PG film we could make sure we are not reading into lines blobs and light reflection.   It may be both skeptics and believers alike are seeing things in the PG film detail.  I might be a real creature and yet the film detail might not really be a detailed as we are imagining it to be.    This is the issue I wish someone could clear up.

 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Backdoc,BMOB-MiddleSegment-AG2_zpse6fa91cb.gif

Just thought SweatyYeti's gif was a cool one showin' her arms.

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Thanks guys.  I think we can agree with segment of the PG shown here debunks what I am saying and does NOT support what I am saying.   I will try to find about when and where I think this is happening and get back with you.  Then you can see if you can at least see what I think I am seeing and then give me a reason why I am seeing it.   Believe me, I am open to suggestions.   Not saying it is happening it just seems that way to me in one early part of the walk as I recall.  (now I will say in this segment, we have stopped short of showing the right hand coming backward so it does not 'test' what  i am talking about.  It does though seem to show the arm out a bit farther in that it would probably clear the thigh on the backswing.  That is very possible.

 

Bakcdoc

Edited by chelefoot
Please do not quote preceeding post or images!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Backdoc,

 

This is pretty early on in the filmin'

 

.Patty61WalkArmSwingAG2.gif

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^

 

Pat,   This is it!

 

Thank you.  To me it looks like his fingertips brush across the leg or the right hand fingers come around the leg.  Not so much back and fourth in a swinging motion as there is a swinging motion where the flexed wrist results in the right hand or fingers having to go around the thigh.   Now the idea of this topic was to account for the line on the thigh that Bill Munns later shows in his presentation.  What I am saying (and thank you again for posting this as this is perfect) it looks to me the fingers of the hand are very close to if not touching the thigh.  THe only reason to continue on this point, if to account for a reason why there might be a line across there on the thigh in any pic earlier than the part Mr. Munns is addressing.  Thus, when the skeptics show a still shot from early in the walking and  appears to be a line they might reasonably contend it is suspect for a line on a suit.    THe film you just showed looks to me like the right hand and fingers are very close to if not stroking the thigh.  Once Patty starts to increase her pace, would her hands and arms abduct more or come closer to the thigh.  I will move on from this point as we are splitting hairs on a minor point.

 

Again, thank you for posting this as this looks to me like the exact part of the film I was thinking. I realize I might be seeing things.

Thanks Pat,  

 

Backdoc

Edited by chelefoot
Please do not quote a post/image directly above yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Bill:

 

Before you attempted to recreate Bob Heironimous' description (either one) of the alleged Patty suit:

 

Did you ever speak to him directly about the suit, or did you build it according to his descriptions in MOB?

 

Was any contact made between you and Bob Heironimous before you embarked on attempting to build a suit according to his recollections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I used his specifications as described in Long's book.

 

They were fairly specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Bill, you did an excellent job of proving that the subject of the PGF is not a costume. Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

What Bob Heironimous described in Long's book, "Making of Bigfoot", is reasonably specific, a old leather helmet like the older footabll helmets which the face mask was attached to, football shoulder pads, hip waders with the rubber boot attached under the fur leggings, and a suit designed with a pants section, a torso or shirt section, and a head mask. The breasts on the shirt part were described as "solid" not fluid, so no water filled device was used.

 

Replicating that description resulted in a total fail to match or even resemble the PGF, leaving four options.

 

A. Long misrepresents what people told him, which would discredit the entire book.

 

B. Bob H. does not know how to accurately describe what he experienced, or invented the description, and in either case, his claims are fully discredited.

 

C. Bob is accurately describing something he actually wore, and which Roger filmed, but it isn't the PGF.

 

D. Some combination of the above three.

 

End result: The PGF is not discredited by Bob Heironimous.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AaronD
Moderator

That's the same end result I got by shaking Bob G's hand and looking him in the eye ;) But, Bill, your reasoning is more logically sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Backdoc,

 

I admire an respect Bill's work on the film as much as most.  However, I disagree with the hand/thumb brushin' the thigh for a few reasons. I've not seen a frame that suggests that the hand brushes the thigh. Frames prior to an after the look back suggest she has her arms out an away from her body, an durin' the look back it would be most likely an most natural for her to actually spread her arms out to a greater degree. Bill mentions how the thigh area changes from light to dark as the hand passes, possibly brushin' the hair thus accountin' for the change in color/reflection.

 

However the area this occurs exceeds the area of the hand, notice further up onto the hip also becomes lighter, my opinion it changes simply by the sun reflectin' off the hair as the leg changes position, as indicated on other areas.

 

That area in question is actually a depression, with a ridge or protrusion above an below it that becomes more noticeable or pronounced with the flexion of the thigh muscle in my opinion. With my understandin' of anatomy, I can seen no reason for it other than it bein' a ol' injury. Granted my knowledge surely has its bounds, so I can't be certain of course, merely my opinion.

 

Pat...

 

 

 

I agree with your observations, Pat... :)

 

One strong bit of evidence indicating that the change in shading on Patty's right thigh....(great observation, btw, Bill...I had never noticed it.. :) )....is not due to her hand brushing the thigh....is that as her leg swings forward, and the shading becomes darker, it becomes darker two Frames after Patty's hand moves past the thigh...

 

Pattywalk-LMS3_zps4373934e.gif

 

 

I don't know why the thigh changes brightness at that point, but it may be due to the angle of the leg, with respect to the direction the sunlight is coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thermalman

I just noticed, as Patty steps down with her right foot, how her weight is evident and causes a muscle and skin ripple up the length of her whole leg the moment her foot contacts the ground (especially the upper leg, in-behind her knee). Her left breast shows an impact vibration as well. It can't possibly be a suit in order to mimic those muscle, skin and soft tissue movements.

Edited by thermalman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...