Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

Throwing in my 2 cents. As a massage therapist I've worked on hundreds of people and muscles, studied Kinesiology. The way Patty moves is just too natural to be faked unless they praticed in the costume thousands of times. To me the movements are completely natural and comfortable. The other thing, why would "men" go to the trouble of making a female bigfoot? (sorry guys).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Fake breasts to cover the rubber chest piece of the gorilla suit.

 

Why thousands of practises? Why not hundreds or dozens?

 

As whacky as it may sound, Akaara, I took the time to have our veterinarian look over the PGF a few months ago and her professional opinion differed greatly from yours.

 

And welcome to the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Akaara,

 

like any observation you get a variety of opinions.  The movement of Patty is impressive.  Even skeptics on these TV shows are impressed with the unusual 'walk' of patty.  "it has a very strange gait that is not human" is what we hear often.  Now they can come up with reasons why that is.  But, those learned experts at least acknowledge the fact on things like the gait.  Jim Hensons creature shop: "if it is a hoax is it one of the best I have ever seen.  I don't know how they would have done that back in 1967"  

 

Again, this does not mean Patty is real or fake. It does not mean these same experts have decided patty is real.  it does mean that even those experts admit there are just some things that don't make it an obvious fake.  There are some experts that dismiss it. Stan Winston "its a guy in a bad suit  --- sorry"   But stan also said it could be made now for $200 and that has not been done with thousands.

 

I like you observations.   You impressions are how the PGF speaks to you.  Stay with the BFF, it has a lot of info and it can be fun to learn from each other.  If you are new to the BFF I suggest you go to Youtube and watch [ The Munns Report ]  It gives great background of the PGF as well as other behind the scenes info one can learn from.  Most skeptics have a lot of respect for Bill Munns. They just have a diff conclusion about the PGF.  Many skepcis on the BFF have made some pretty good points as well.

 

Keep searching and good luck to you.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the fake breasts made to cover the chest piece...I have not heard this theory before. I thought they were made because of a picture Roger saw in a magazine.

Wouldn't it have been a hundred times easier just to paint the chest piece, or overlay it with the material they used to make the breasts? The effect would have looked authentic and no worries about how the breasts would move, or if they would fall off etc. This theory makes no sense to me, too much trouble for too little payoff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ yep, way too much trouble, especially considering that the resulting "fake breasts" would need to bounce realistically when she walks (again, very unlike any costume apparatus of the time could do).

 

pgf010101_zpsd659e114.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

maddog23

 

if you ever have the opportunity to review work by Bill Munns this may answer loads of questions.

 He is a special effects professional and has been working on the PGF film for sometime.  

One of the topics he studied dealt with the breast, materials, performance etc. 

He did comparative studies of the PGF film, live models, and  breast made from various materials.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at how her pectoral muscles move just in this little clip (that was posted above) when she swings her arm, her glutes move, her quads move as well.  It does not look like a normal human walk and someone would have had to pratice that gait for a long time to get consistant like that.

 

pgf010101_zpsd659e114.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

maddog23

 

if you ever have the opportunity to review work by Bill Munns this may answer loads of questions.

 He is a special effects professional and has been working on the PGF film for sometime.  

One of the topics he studied dealt with the breast, materials, performance etc. 

He did comparative studies of the PGF film, live models, and  breast made from various materials.

I have read quite a bit of it, Wheel. Interesting stuff and hard to refute, though people will never stop trying I guess!

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

 

Look at how her pectoral muscles move just in this little clip (that was posted above) when she swings her arm, her glutes move, her quads move as well.  It does not look like a normal human walk and someone would have had to pratice that gait for a long time to get consistant like that.

 

I couldn't agree more, Akaara.  Welcome to the BFF!  The skeptics tell us that the PGf subject is just a cheap monkey suit and that there is nothing impressive about it.  That's pure malarkey.  The image below is typical of every monkey suit during that era and there is really no comparison:

 

post-131-0-43003700-1403317837_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Fake breasts to cover the rubber chest piece of the gorilla suit.

 

Why thousands of practises? Why not hundreds or dozens?

 

As whacky as it may sound, Akaara, I took the time to have our veterinarian look over the PGF a few months ago and her professional opinion differed greatly from yours.

 

And welcome to the forum.

Squatchy McSquatch,

When my Mom was in the hospital, at one point she had physical therapy etc., I talked to them every day, so one day I brought my camera in an showed the PGF, he was familiar with it. He had seen it before, told me he never knew what to make of it, but he was always impressed with it, said it moved differently, but always found it realistic. It kinda through him for a loop, hard to believe they excist, but the filmed subject looked real to him. He was a physical therapist at the hospital, quite familiar with anatomy an locomotion.

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

It might be interesting to read the opinion of an intelligent veterinarian who has actually looked closely at the Patterson-Gimlin Film, but that sounds like another drive-by comment for which there will never be anything significant to back it up.  On the other hand, it has been shown conclusively many times that the animal shown in the PGf does not and will not fit into the MiaS speculations. 

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

maddog23

 

if you ever have the opportunity to review work by Bill Munns this may answer loads of questions.

 He is a special effects professional and has been working on the PGF film for sometime.  

One of the topics he studied dealt with the breast, materials, performance etc. 

He did comparative studies of the PGF film, live models, and  breast made from various materials.

 

Patty head recreation...

 

Bighead5.jpg

 

Bighead.jpg

 

Bighead4.jpg

 

Bighead3.jpg

 

Bighead1.jpg

 

Bighead2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

It's the jigsaw puzzle making an appearance again. A moving pic or full pic of the work product would still be nice too see.

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

If you showed Pruitt's movin', we'd see all the folds, not to mention, never did see it finished. You showed a clip of upper section, but all he did was rotate his body, no arm movement, don't even think he moved the head.

Then we have this attempt by Blevins.

If you ask me...

Pat...

post-279-0-21510200-1403569982_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...