Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MNskeptic

Flap On The Right Foot

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

I think these are extremely similar...

 

Patterson_Dfoot-first.jpg

 

 

Since Pat contributed a picture of a human foot, with the toes viewed in profile....here is another version of the 'toe length comparison' graphic I had made...

 

F61-F309-RightFootToes-HumanFoot1_zps97a

 

 

And....the graphic with the x-ray image of a human foot...

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/F61-F309-RightFootToes-Xray1_zpsaf4db003.jpg

 

 

The different 'apparent lengths' of the toes, when viewed from the top, and the bottom of the foot is a trickier thing to accomplish than simply carving-out the shape of a foot.

 

But....admittedly, Dfoot was at a handicap....he only worked in Hollywood, around suits... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Kit @ Post #105.

 

The pics in the middle showing the toes are not similar at all.  I am astonished you put fourth such as example as similar. While I will see they are both dark feet we both know there are taken from 2 different films and not still pics.  When you present these as still pics I understand that is needed to show the general look.  But, as old Paul Harvey would say, we need "the Rest of the Story"

 

When we view that segment of the PGF the toes on the PGF EXTEND upward.  The toes on the suit do not exhibit any independent control.  If they flop or move it is dependent on the costume foot moving inside the rubber foot that might allow the toes to shake a little bit. 

 

When we are actually allowed to compare Apples to Apples here, the rest of the story is the PGF toes extend while walking and point upward.  The functional view of a moving pic of the costume does not accomplish this. Thus, they are nothing alike. 

 

I know it is ok to show a still pic to say, "hey these look a little bit alike"  but that is not admitting they do not FUNCTION at all alike. 

 

These two examples could look the same ( both dark and hairy big feet) but they do not at all Behave the same.  If your point is these still pics are similar you might get a few saying they do.  If you are saying the ACT the same and DO the same things when put in motion, I cannot believe even you would agree they do.

 

Having made points like this before I do not wish for you to think I am saying still pics have no value. I am not saying it is not good to use them.  Just make sure we tell, THE REST OF THE STORY.

 

Backdoc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

When we view that segment of the PGF the toes on the PGF EXTEND upward. 

 

Unfortunately, the video of Bronston Deloney walking in the suit where Meldrum admits his surprise how easily he was able to replicate the walk is no longer on Youtube or any other online source I have found. The still is part of a sequence of moving footage showing the Best Evidence suit foot flopping up the same as the PGF. In the PGF there are only three steps to examine from the viewpoint of arguing either a flopping suit foot, or Bigfoot feet doing something impossible for suit toes to do.

 

Here is Patty and those three steps...

 

504094_orig.gif 

If you don't mind, please talk to me in the context as someone who once thought this real, also a layman. In the three steps right there, can you do something, show something convincing for a moderate person to tell them this can not be a suit where the toes are concerned. Forget me altogether. Just think of the moderate, undecided person. They are all that matters. What can you present to such a person to make them understand that can not be a suit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I have watched the Stanford thing several times as I am sure you have.  In fact, I think it might be on NetFlix but not sure.  Anyway, I know it is hard to compare stuff and we have to piece the stuff together the best we can. I think we understand each other's point pretty well.  I just think believers and skeptics alike need to try to compare apples to apples any time we can.

 

I have no doubt if a smoking gun film was discovered where Roger and Bob were standing there on film telling and showing a friend how they would do this hoax and had a suit right there on the film, some would still choose to disbelieve it as they have too much invested in the idea the PGF is real and will not move off of that for any reason.  I would also say the same thing about some skeptics in reverse.

 

Having watched the Stanford study video many times, i can tell you the toe movement is the issue or me. I cannot emphasize this enough.    I have not doubt a person can be trained to mimic most things in life.  I think the Stanford study of walking on smooth ground in a costume for the sole purpose of taking a post 1967 suit and trying to walk to mimic Patty is in fact possible.  Forgetting the fact this occurs under conditions completely different from the PGF site with what looks to me to be a stretch fabric suit over a muscle suit which is clearly post 1967 methods.

 

The suit toes do not point upward on the walking motion.  Thus, if it does not do that then by definition it does not functionally match at all as far as I am concerned.  I am confident people like you and me are trying to search for the truth. we are at different places at this time in that process. That is ok.  

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

I find the degree of elevation in the sasquatch heel rather interestin' compared to that of the human heel same phase of the step cycle.

Pat...

post-279-0-36955000-1393116235_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

This took 2 hrs to put on these Hobbit feet from the movie by people on top of there craft in modern times:

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...