Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kitakaze

A Place To Discuss Changes In Perception Of The Pgf.

Changes in perception of the PGF.  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

DWA

Why in the heck would humans be bipedal?  Where did we evolve, cities?

 

Why would a bumblebee be shaped like that?

 

Same kind of question.

 

If one read encounter reports - or thought, among other things, about that little midtarsal break a bit, and also noted that these animals are reported to be very good quadrupedally as well - one could easily see benefits to bipedalism when it came to the essential niche partitioning (I know, Big Technical Concept there).  Are people making up an animal's fine-tuned adaptations to its environment?  People.Aren't.That.Good.

 

Can't avoid Munns.  Address Bill or you are bringing a washcloth to a gunfight.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Few months? It took neither eight years nor only a few months. Where are you getting a few months from?

 

 

So....in the few months when you were posting on Jref, where you "could not see a costume...no matter how hard you tried"....what specific points did you make on Jref, regarding the realistic features that you saw, on Patty?

 

I missed those specific points. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Kitikaze: Bill has already addressed the appearance and properties of Patty's breasts in a presentation at (I believe) a NAWAC conference. This included Bill going the extra mile to hire real live breast models and film the mechanical properties of the hominid breast in free-fall, and while subject to other mechanical forces. (I know, I know....the sacrifices he has made for science). It convinced me.  As for appearance of Patty's mammary glands... without wanting to, ummm, delve too deeply into my own subjective experiences, I would suggest the appearance may just be attributable to engorgement during lactation, but I'll just emphasize that any who come to this analysis with ideas of how these were hoaxed will only convince me and many others if they present similarly detailed experiments and are as open about their science as Bill has been. So far, we see a lot of subjective rejection of the film, which all are free to do of course, but this can't be confused with the kinds of obective analysis Bill has done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

I hold the hoax proponents to the same standards as the unlisted animal proponents.

 

Former:  utter fail.

 

Latter:  flying colors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kitikaze: Bill has already addressed the appearance and properties of Patty's breasts in a presentation at (I believe) a NAWAC conference. This included Bill going the extra mile to hire real live breast models and film the mechanical properties of the hominid breast in free-fall, and while subject to other mechanical forces. (I know, I know....the sacrifices he has made for science). It convinced me.  As for appearance of Patty's mammary glands... without wanting to, ummm, delve too deeply into my own subjective experiences, I would suggest the appearance may just be attributable to engorgement during lactation, but I'll just emphasize that any who come to this analysis with ideas of how these were hoaxed will only convince me and many others if they present similarly detailed experiments and are as open about their science as Bill has been. So far, we see a lot of subjective rejection of the film, which all are free to do of course, but this can't be confused with the kinds of obective analysis Bill has done. 

 

Yes, 21:00 mark here - three materials tested: foam latex, slip rubber, polyurethane...

 

 

Three materials, all non-moving (forget the contention of how much Patty's breasts move). What moving materials have been tested? Gel, lard, sand. sawdust, stuffing of whatever kind? Were these materials unavailable in 1967? Why test three unmoving materials and nothing else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

^^^Ask Munns.  He tested them because they were the candidates.

 

right Bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Reasons to exclude materials would include (but not be limited to):

 

1. Can't mold them to a specific shape

2. Can't glue or attach them to other costume elements

3. Can't paint them to match other costume elements

4. Can't store them effectively

5. can't work them on distant locations away from lab conditions

 

No fluid prosthetic devices existed then and I did research the subject then because I wanted to figure out how to get more fluidity into aging facial prosthetic jowels and double chins, and there were no solutions then (this was around 1974, thereabouts). Charlie gamora's often described water bag gorilla suit belly was considered but there were no technical descriptions of what he actually did, and no proof on film it actually worked, so while water filled prosthetics were considered, the molding, casting, fluid filling and sealing, all made such a concept unworkable for a prosthetic object.

 

If it was workable, **** Smith would have used such for Katherine Ross' breasts for the movie Stepford Wives, but he just used simple foamed latex prosthetics, which had no fluid motion, and **** Smith was the great innovator of the era, so if he couldn't do it, I sincerely doubt anyone else could.

 

 

added:

 

Apparently the forum system does not like the common nickname for a man who's formal name is Richard, four etters, starts with D

Edited by Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Kitikaze: Good, you know of it then. I actually proposed another material to Bill: Water balloons. I was quite satisfied with his response and his reasons why he exclude that. Some of them, like at least one of the ones you've suggested, seem to have overlapping properties with some of those he did test.  But, I'm the wrong person to respond to those questions. Bill is on the board, and he can do that if he chooses. I think all of us here know that if the theory is  reasonable, and testable, Bill will consider it.

 

I guess you could go on and on, and propose/test every substance known to man, but at what point does the reasonable mind go, "enough already?" We all have different thresholds for that, I know.

 

What I've concluded after talking and listening to many folks who are not swayed by the PGF is that their resistance has much less to do with the appearance of the critter and much more to do with their arbitrary imposition of what other evidence we "should have" found by now, even proof. Many are also loathe to admit that to themselves and others, in my opinion.  The PGF can be a true source of objective proof, but once that point of view is lost, I don't think it can be regained, no matter how compelling the analysis is to the contrary. The only case in point we really need to weigh on that opinion is how there is no skeptic here yet who has given Bill any serious run for his money on what is just on the film, and what is not. We instead see lots of deferments to the lack of "other" evidence, "other" hoaxes and not much talk about why Bill's conclusions based ONLY on what is shown on that film are even probably wrong. 

Edited by WSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

If it was workable, **** Smith would have used such for Katherine Ross' breasts for the movie Stepford Wives, but he just used simple foamed latex prosthetics, which had no fluid motion, and **** Smith was the great innovator of the era, so if he couldn't do it, I sincerely doubt anyone else could.

 

I think the inherent problem is here. With Patty there is not an attempt to show realistic human breasts, but rather the breasts of a Bigfoot as depicted here...

 

Bigmort2.jpg

 

The movement I think regardless is at least agreeable to little for size C-D. This is what we get...

breastsrevealed2.gif

 

I'll ask just this for now, to you, Bill. Do you agree that Patty's breasts are quite bulbous and extrude? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stan Norton

Sorry to spoil things with science, but did someone really say bipedalism evolved so we could fashion and carry tools??? Evidence please doc!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

DWA,

 

I came here to the BFF on the 60 yard line toward Patty being a creature of nature. The other stuff mentioned has pushed me to 98 yards.  It's 1st and goal with just 2 yards to go.

 

I would look at this thing as a trial. I have seen Roger and Bob accused of a fraud. The evidence is lacking. Oh yea we can nit pick on little areas of the stories saying 'extreme claims take extreme evidence'  Yet, to show this was a fraud it should be easy to repeat such a fraud.  This has never been done.  oh some will show an example or two of an attempt in the still picture.  If in that 'trail' they brought as evidence the Blivens video, I would never be able to stop laughing.  Roger and Bob are not guilty based on the fact those accusing them are without the ability to repeat their fraud.  Little details later in fact that we find more and more support them.  Most skeptics will go to great lengths to say things like, "well they were trying to shoot a documentary!"   Well big deal. 

 

Like most people my age we grew up watching Peter Graves in the theaters for a quick- less than a minute- look at the PGF.  Then later we as kids read Daniel Cohens books about Myths and Monsters. Only a still pic of the famous Patty turn was shown from my 1970's into the mid 1980's.  Only after the 1980's when we could rent a VCR and watch a VHS tape of the shows could we study the Bigfoot idea ourselves ('hey, play that back again').  Then in the Hisotry Channel and Discovery channel efforts we see some real effort being devoted to it. Youtube, internet forums and most importantly computer enhanced images of the patty subject.  Some having grown up in the 1970's and hearing 'someone confessed to being Patty' on the news would be done with the concept as 'yea they proved it was fake' and moved on.

 

I always leaned a little toward it being real just on my guy instinct of what it seems I see.  But after doing some study with the walk itself I decided to go onto the BFF and read. I did this for months and then finally joined.  As I said before, it is the fail of the' Bigfoot is a suit but I just refused to show how 2 cowboys did it' is a huge factor to my present way of thinking.  I would probably say most of my life I have leaned a little toward patty being real but the more I see on the BFF in the WEAKNESS of the skeptics the more they actually push me toward belief even further.  I just expected so much more from those who are skeptics and it is just not there.  Let's say Bill Munns happen to make a suit nearly like Patty that behaved and looked like Patty. I would say, "well Bill's suit convinces me it is a likely hoax"  I am not married to my view. I just figure and thinking person has no where else to go other than move toward the Patty is a creature of nature. I am PUSHED to that conclusion based on the weak suit evidence being the wind at my back.

 

When the boy was lost in VA and it took 1200 volunteers 6 days and tracking dogs and night vision equiptment to check a 3 miles circle of that park wilderness.  This completely dismisses those who say, 'the woods have been checked out!'  That is the fact that makes what roger and bob claim even more reasonable. 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Kitikaze....don't make me tell tales out of school here..wouldn't be gentlemanly of me at all, but, well...trust me on this one: There is precedence. Well, actually more than one example, if you must know.  (He said, with a wistful and far-away look in his eyes)  ;-0   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Stan, all those reasons have been proposed, but also the ability to carry young.Transporting food over long distances is also a bennie.  The fact is there are very few evolutionary incentives to stand upright otherwise, if there are any. Proof may not be cited, I don't think, but it still seems to me and many others the only hypothesis that carries much weight. You don't flash your vitals to the predators of the world without getting some proportionate benefit in return, don't you agree?


As I was around when the original news broke, I am decidedly "none of the above" in response to this poll. If you were there, and were watching it on an 11" b&W tee vee with tinfoil on the rabbit ears, as I was, your reaction would have been much the same: "Hmmm, what are they showing me, exactly?" It wasn't until higher resolution, replayable versions were available that I was able to even make out if it showed anything remotely real. To me, it fit that description. It triggered for me, as it did for many others, a curiosity about other evidence. Bill's science sealed the deal for me, as it has for many others I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stan Norton

There are indeed many putative reasons why human/primate habitual bipedalism evolved but as far as I'm aware tool manufacture ain't one of the good ones. Not least because bipedalism appears to have evolved a long long time before we have any evidence of tool manufacture. Tool manufacture as a consequence of prior bipedalism?  That seems more likely. 

 

Sexual selection would appear to be the most parsimonious reason to permanently flash your crown jewels...comparatively, humans are rather well endowed apes so maybe standing upright saved a lot of snagging on brambles...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

WSA I would think more the 'cause' for bipedal-ism was a change of landscape.   It's been put forth that the reason man became bipedal is due to the change in the environment.  Less trees, change of climate etc... Imagine if you would, taking chimps out of the forest and putting them into a grass plain.  Would they either evolve to be more bipedal or become more like baboons and vervets?  With their current hip structure I could see them becoming more upright than going on all four.   it wasn't due to tools.. its possibly a Darwinism, adaptation to the environment.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...