Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

Backdoc

Bill Munns does a Brilliant presentation to the Texas Bigfoot group.  By Brilliant I don't just mean Brilliant in the classic sense of the word.  I mean, for 45-50 minutes Bill does an amazing job going through the PGF and esp the figure of Patty.  I mean Brilliant as in the Best I have ever watched.   Bill as a Master in his craft as a Hollywood costume/makeup Master more or less pretends to try to make a suit by reverse engineering the patty image.  He makes a mask and proves it does not fit a person.  The most striking fact he points out are fur details and lines on Patty long assumed by skeptics to represent lines of a 'costume' of some kind.  When you see how the lines change and the motion of walking, hands movements, and fur it is enough to make even the most harsh skeptic say, 'that makes me think'  If you have not seen it, see Bill Muns in the Texas Bigfoot group video.  HIs presentation is a MUST SEE to those who study Patty.

 

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ I totally agree, when it comes to the PGf, Bill M. is the man, no doubt about it!  That's not because he thinks that the subject is biologically real but rather, because he is very qualified to study it and has done so with objectivity, extreme patience and skill. 

 

+1  :aikido:

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

 

^^^  A squatch is what Roger and Bob rode out that day to film.

 

They called it a Bigfoot, but that raises the question again:

 

what IS a sasquatch?

 

Give me a reason to not consider the pgf a hoax, because all I see when I look at it is a guy in a suit and common sense.

Um....let's seee...um, the scientists who disagree with you...slam.

 

Common sense.

 

Ummm, your scientists disagree with me.

 

Four or seven of your scientists vs no squatch ever.

 

The rest of science is verifying real evidemce.

 

Non bf related real evidence.

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

And, of course, evidence only becomes 'real' sometime after the fact.  I don't blame Science for not knowing everything; they/we never will.  However, this looks like a good place to start:patty-stripped-animation1_zps406f86c8.gi

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

 

 

^^^  A squatch is what Roger and Bob rode out that day to film.

 

They called it a Bigfoot, but that raises the question again:

 

what IS a sasquatch?

 

Give me a reason to not consider the pgf a hoax, because all I see when I look at it is a guy in a suit and common sense.

Um....let's seee...um, the scientists who disagree with you...slam.

 

Common sense.

 

Ummm, your scientists disagree with me.

 

Four or seven of your scientists vs no squatch ever.

 

The rest of science is verifying real evidemce.

 

Non bf related real evidence.

 

Squatchy McSquatch,

 

Ummm....scientists themselves, disagree with each other non-stop.

Four or seven scientists who are perhaps familiar with the evidence vs those who aren't...huh ?

We've known all along bout chimps, science only recently found fossil evidence of them !

Enough evidence to warrant a look.

 

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Backdoc

Another reason to think Patty is real.  Patty does not walk like a person.  If patty is a person than she should walk like a person wearing  suit.  A person walks like this:

 

 

 

Notice no mid tarsal break.  No walking on bent knees but locked leg step by step.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Urkelbot

Does meldrum ever go into the efficiency of the walking motion of the subject in the film at least compared to a normal human gait? If the video is real and Bigfoot has separately evolved a form of bipedal locomotion which one is superior?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always on the fence.... all I new for sure was that I didn't have a satisfactory explanation one way or the other.  

 

I simply don't know enough about biology or about suit technology to even know if  the experts are making any sense.  But finally I was won over by 2 things ...

 

A. Bill Munns and his most excellent work on the PGF.

 

B. A simple animated gif.

 

during Bills talk at the Texas bigfoot conference (i saw it on the tube), near the end of his presentation he addresses the line on her thigh, during which time there is a gif playing in a loop on the projector in the background, and as I watched it, I became aware of the way she steps into a hollow, and as she compensates, you can see a great slab of muscle in her leg tighten and flex then wobble a bit. This was the convincer for me, it reminds me of a sprinters leg.

 

It looked something like this... only much better quality.

 

patty9_zps7a0a6dcd.gif

 

patty10_zps54000ab5.gif

 

 

Also when you see her slowed down it becomes more obvious how natural and smooth her movements are.

Edited by blueb4sunrise
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

Give me a reason to not consider the pgf a hoax, because all I see when I look at it is a guy in a suit and common sense.

 

 

Here ya' go, Squatchy... :) ...

 

 

 

 

AbbeyRoad9.jpg

 

 

 

I thought he was the 'Walrus"

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest zenmonkey

Here is one very good reason to consider the PGF not to be a hoax....the 'white spot' located in the lower half of the 'eye socket'...(clearly visible in three of the following Frames)...

 

F352F358F364F370Comp2.jpg

 

 

There are two major problems with it, under the 'hoax' scenario...

 

1) There is no reason for it to exist, as part of a suit mask. It serves no purpose.

 

....and...

 

2) It would obstruct the actor's vision.

 

(With such a sharply-sloped cranium, it's highly doubtful that an actor's eyes would be located within the upper-half of the mask's eye opening. That wouldn't leave much 'vertical space' for a human forehead/cranium.

 

But with the obstruction (the white object) in the lower-half...that is exactly where the actor's eyes would have to have been located....(the upper-half).

I had read that bob heironoimus (sp??) had a glass eye and it was put on the eye socket of the suit and could be seen shining.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I had read that bob heironoimus (sp??) had a glass eye and it was put on the eye socket of the suit and could be seen shining.

 

 

 

It's more likely that we're seeing Starshine, than it is we're seeing Bob's prosthetic eye shining, zenmonkey. :)

 

 

Here is a comparison between 'glass eyeballs', and the white object on Patty's face...

 

GlassEye-Comp3_zpsc90b82c4.gif

 

 

 

If Roger had stuck a glass eye into a mask...it would have to have been set deeply inside the eye socket....and, then any 'eyeshine' would be centered within the socket....but, what we see on Patty's face isn't centrered. It's at the lower edge of the socket.

 

Another major problem for the 'glass eye' theory, is that Bob H. wasn't Patty. :)

 

 

Just looking at your article, Bigfoothunter....I noticed that the white spot you circled in Frame 350...is not the white spot in question, on Patty's face....(it's just a speck of dust on that particular version of F350)...

 

MillerReportGlassEye-Frame350Comp1_zpsca

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^

 

Actually it was Greg Long who implied that the white spot must be from the glass eye that Bob H concocted because Long believed that real eyes don't catch sunlight. The problem was that Long merely made this up, which was easy to debunk.

http://sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

 

 

Yea, I read that in all the news who reported Bob H was Patty.  The Headlines read, "Man who claims Patty Lied",    "BIG story doesn't add up",    "Changing story castes doubt on man's claim"        Wait a minute!    That didn't happen.    

 

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest zenmonkey

 

I had read that bob heironoimus (sp??) had a glass eye and it was put on the eye socket of the suit and could be seen shining.

 

 

 

It's more likely that we're seeing Starshine, than it is we're seeing Bob's prosthetic eye shining, zenmonkey. :)

 

 

Here is a comparison between 'glass eyeballs', and the white object on Patty's face...

 

 

 

**Images Removed**

 

If Roger had stuck a glass eye into a mask...it would have to have been set deeply inside the eye socket....and, then any 'eyeshine' would be centered within the socket....but, what we see on Patty's face isn't centrered. It's at the lower edge of the socket.

 

Another major problem for the 'glass eye' theory, is that Bob H. wasn't Patty. :)

 

 

Just looking at your article, Bigfoothunter....I noticed that the white spot you circled in Frame 350...is not the white spot in question, on Patty's face....(it's just a speck of dust on that particular version of F350)...

 

**Images Removed**

 

 

Ya i was kinda wondering if they stuck the eye like onto the actual face of the mask or what because it wouldnt be visible in the eye socket. Was just throwing it out there.   The PGF never really mattered to me because it doesnt prove/dis prove anything so im just now getting into it. what was the story with long? where did he pop out from???         thanks guys   and yes i am on the con side don't murder me lol

Edited by zenmonkey
To Removed Quoted Images
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...