Jump to content
kitakaze

Patterson/gimlin Vs Independence Day Footage - A Closer Look.

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch

New drinking game:

 

Take a shot each time Sweaty posts the word Bombshell.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

:)

:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Until I see better evidence that a Morris suit was used in the PGF, and while I accept that he sold Patterson a suit, I've permanently discounted Morris' claim that his suit was used.

 

 

Now what exactly is your logic that because I accept Heironimus' claim of being in the suit, I must accept Morris' claim of making the suit? Heironimus' acceptance is non sequitur. 

The logic is this... 

 

In all of the Bob H interviews, he persistently updates and changes the story - prompted by others - to make corrections as flaws are noted.

.. even as noted by Long in his book ' The making of bigfoot'. 

He has always  'followed the money'. 

His last partnership was with Morris walking around in a suit, made by Morris, promoting costumes made by Morris.

A quip from Wiki  'Long argues that the suit Morris says he sold to Patterson was the same suit Heironimus claims to have worn in the Patterson film.'

 

So long as Bob H continues to promote Morris as the creator of the suit, then they will inexplicably be tied together. 

 

To say Bob H is the guy in the 'suit' is to affirm the claim it is a Morris suit.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

New drinking game:

 

Take a shot each time Sweaty posts the word Bombshell.

 

 

And a big, hearty laugh every time kit runs from it... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

It simply isn't possible for anyone to be confused about being the subject of a film, Salubrious....when so many details of the filming, and the circumstances surrounding it would have been so different.

 

 

 

I agree. I am of the opinion that there was a second film that was made using a gorilla suit, of which Bob H was the subject- the guy in the suit. Thing is, I don't think he knew about the PGF, nor did he realize that the film he was in was destroyed shortly after it was viewed for the first time. IOW Bob H thinks the PGF is a film with him in it, because its a pretty good bet that Patterson would not have talked about the monumental failure of his attempt to duplicate the PGF.  To anyone.

 

Under this theory, it makes plenty of sense that Bob H's horse might have been on the scene of the PGF itself- if Bob H and Patterson were friends.

 

This is my own theory mind you, I persist with it because it fits nicely with everything that we know and most of which is conjecture. Also, I didn't make it up- this has been suggested before although I don't recall where. It will really be something extraordinary if we ever get any proof of anything associated with the PGF; it will all remain conjecture.

 

I am of course perfectly happy to abandon this theory in lieu of a better one but that better theory has not come along yet.

 

I saw somewhere recently that the PGF was 'proven' a hoax (http://www.hibbingmn.com/opinion/columnists/one-bigfoot-myth-we-can-hardly-bear/article_002721e6-1a94-11e4-913e-001a4bcf887a.html), I don't know where the guy got that from but he is quite mistaken. The PGF stands as some of the best proof of the existence of BF, entirely out of the fact that it has proven impossible to make a film like it, even with modern techniques. I suppose it makes a difference having seen one close up- one that looked a lot like Patty, although a different color. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DannySpanks

Over size shoes also distribute weight. Foot print depth would be greatly hindered. 

The breast have been studied by a special effects guy, Bill Munns, and compared with human models.  The film does show the breast move when the subject takes step.  

His comparison used 3 types of created breasts used during that time period as well as human models. 

The fabricated breast, regardless of material type, did not move.  However the human models behaved in a similar fashion as that seen in the film.

Footprint depth can be manipulated when the camera is off.

I will not dispute Mr. Munns' findings of the 3 types of fake breasts he tested. I will however, suggest that there were probably other non-traditional or less obvious materials or substances available at the time that could perhaps produce a similar bounce.

Also, if you look at the position of the breasts on the torso, Patty's are positioned much lower. Which would be fine if there was significant sag involved. However, Patty appears to be rather firm.

On a side note, if Patty is more human than ape, I retract my previous issue with Patty's hairy hooters. I can understand why that would be. But regardless, there are still other issues that trouble me about her breasts, and the rest of the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

How about proving your validity, and taking a look at the 400gb or so worth of data that Bill Munn's based his conclusions on, and then writing a proper scientific rebuttal Danny?  How come so many so called "internet skeptics" want to attack others work, but don't seem to do their own work? It seems like they want everyone else to do all the leg work, then come along, and challenge it based on stuff they read on other forums. That is not critical thinking Danny, that is being a cheerleader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I agree. I am of the opinion that there was a second film that was made using a gorilla suit, of which Bob H was the subject- the guy in the suit. Thing is, I don't think he knew about the PGF, nor did he realize that the film he was in was destroyed shortly after it was viewed for the first time. IOW Bob H thinks the PGF is a film with him in it, because its a pretty good bet that Patterson would not have talked about the monumental failure of his attempt to duplicate the PGF.  To anyone.

 

 

 

I'm not going to bother listing all of the circumstances surrounding the PGF filming that make the 'Confused Bobby' theory untenable, Salubrious...but, as just one example of them.....how is it that Bob could recall "driving to Eureka, Calif. to ship the film to Al DeAtley"....after this other alleged filming??

 

Do you think Roger actually shot two films, at two different times, in the Bluff Creek area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

I have no idea. Nor do I know all the facts in the matter- its just a pet theory, and likely will change if/when I find out more factual information.

 

For example, I would propose (to fit my theory) that the film Bob H referred to was not the PGF at all but may have been the film that he was in. Apparently though Patterson shot a lot of film, not unlike a person that has a camera and shots clips to this very day. IOW the film that Bob H shipped off could have been anything, perhaps just shots of nice scenery. One thing is sure: we really don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I have no idea. Nor do I know all the facts in the matter- its just a pet theory, and likely will change if/when I find out more factual information.

 

For example, I would propose (to fit my theory) that the film Bob H referred to was not the PGF at all but may have been the film that he was in. Apparently though Patterson shot a lot of film, not unlike a person that has a camera and shots clips to this very day. IOW the film that Bob H shipped off could have been anything, perhaps just shots of nice scenery. One thing is sure: we really don't know.

 

 

I am 100% certain that Roger did not make 2 trips to Bluff Creek...to shoot two different films in and around October, 1967, with both films having some reason to be shipped right away to Al DeAtley's home.

 

There are a lot more circumstances surrounding the filming which Bob would have to be confused over/misremembering...which I am not gonna bother getting into....it would be a waste of my time. The 'Confused Bobby' theory is absolutely ridiculous.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DannySpanks

My response will be in the same tone, as your response to me. See the * bold asterisks below...

 

How about proving your validity, and taking a look at the 400gb or so worth of data that Bill Munn's based his conclusions on, and then writing a proper scientific rebuttal Danny?  

* I was unaware I was required to read 400gb of data, and then write a proper scientific rebuttal, in order to have an opinion or make a comment. I also don't think anyone else would need to take on such a challenge in order to answer or address the simple questions I asked, or the softball comments I made. That being said, I don't see any sort of response from you in regards to those things. As far as I can see, all you've done is question my right to ask any questions in the first place.

 

 

  How come so many so called "internet skeptics" want to attack others work, but don't seem to do their own work?

* And where exactly did I "attack" others work? In my comment, I did not argue with Bill's findings. I respect Bill. He has been respectful to me, and visa versa. But again, I was unaware that it was taboo to ask questions, or make observations of my own. In regards to laziness or incompetence, do you have your own 400gb worth of data  to share with me? And could you please pass along your own scientific breakdown of the PGF that you apparently have done all by yourself?

 

It seems like they want everyone else to do all the leg work, then come along, and challenge it based on stuff they read on other forums. That is not critical thinking Danny, that is being a cheerleader.

* I came here to ask some very simple and basic questions about the film, that were not sufficiently answered by looking them up on the internet. I am not a member of any other Bigfoot forums, nor do I read any. (I'm a member of the Dallas Cowboys Fan Forum, but I don't think that's what you are talking about.) I do visit bigfootevidence.blogspot on a daily basis, and I'm a fan of Phil Poling's ParaBreakdown. Other than that, this is it. In regards to my lack of "critical thinking", and your suggestion that I'm simply a "cheerleader", I will chalk those comments up to you being in a bad mood or something.

 

I've had a few conversations here thus far, and everyone has been as respectful to me as I've been to them. And I will continue to conduct myself in that manner. Which explains why my tone changed in response to your comments.

 

Yes, I'm skeptical of the PGF. But I'm not a troll, and I'm not here to pick fights. I'm no Bill Munns, and I'm no Kitakaze. Those guys are elite Rhode Scholars compared to me. However, although I am new to the DISCUSSION of the PGF and BF, I am not new to the subject matter. I didn't just read about BF last week and decide to join a message board, and I didn't see the PGF for the first time yesterday.

 

I would post and comment more often, but I'm stuck in the "Readers Group" which limits how many comments you can post, and all comments have to be "approved" first. In fact, once I send this in, I won't be able to make another comment until early tomorrow morning. (Insert unhappy BF growl here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Danny: The times they are a-changing...

 

In order to have a [skeptical] viewpoint you must first self publish a paper on a website, then self publish a book.

 

This seems to be the recent pre-requisite for owning an opinion on the matter.

 

And if the proponent camp, in absence of any evidence physical or scientific, disagrees with you, 

 

Then Paddy was the real deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

How's your rugsquatch coming? You had a pretty strong opinion on how easy that was going to be to throw together. Any quantifiable evidence to back up your viewpoint? I didn't think so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 I think its more of a case of the repetitiveness of it all Squatchy. As work progresses on the film you see a lot of evidence coming out on the proponents side, it moves forward. The skeptical side just keeps going over the same old stuff over and over again, and frankly, (aside from the obvious lack of a type specimen), I see nothing but Bigfoot anecdotal evidence and I see nothing but skeptical hearsay as an answer. The skeptical side will say,...well its a hoax because BobH, being of the character he is, says blah blah and blah, add another bunch of other crazy hearsay stuff, and repeat. The proponents shoot it all down, and rather competently I might add,(for a large percentage of it), and then again, repeat.

 Then the people who put serious scientific work into it, are not just disbelieved by the skeptic, but are outright attacked for the work they do. Its fine to disagree, its even better to debate, but terms like Don Jeff, and Dr. Meldum and crap, especially from people who are obviously unqualified to pass such judgement, is very revealing about the character of the skeptics themselves. So if you want to disagree, great, but instead of just out and out attacking the science and research others are doing, do some research and science back.

 Not every skeptic has to write a rebuttal, just a handful will do. Never mind "opinions" from qualified people, do some work, produce some data. Then once the skeptic side has its Bill Munn's, Meldrums, Bindernagals, and Krantzes, combined with some devoted amateur researchers,then maybe it will make for a stronger case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...