Jump to content
Old Dog

Pgf Not Seen Before.

Recommended Posts

Cotter

^ Me too. It's thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

I think it is something to consider when some ape scientists who work and live with apes for years in the bush happen to be very impressed with the PGF.  They know how an 'ape' moves, the look of the fur and so on. When they have a conclusion the PGF is real it does not mean that is proof but it is important.  A seasoned ape researcher would not be easily fooled. 

 

We are too quick to discount this feeling. 

 

For Patty to be fake, it would have to be faked in a 1967 or prior method way.  It would have to display the look of what we see on the PGF.  Finally, it should give a look where people like Ian Redman (sp?) would be impressed.

 

Consider the Jim Henson Creature shop look of this film.   The creature maker willing to appear on TV said if it is a hoax it is one of the great ones of all time. He said he did now know how they could have achieved the look of the PGF in 1967.  Again, this is a person who understands the real limit on the material the had to work with at the time.

 

Jonas Prohaska clearly thought it was real and not a hoax as a monkey suit guy of the time.

 

The look does impress many who are not laymen but 'In the Know' about their field. 

 

Does Patty have a real look to her?  Does she walk smooth on a very shaky surface / unpredictable surface? 

 

These are all things to consider before dismissing the PGF.  Thanks to Blevins and other Baaaaaaaaad suit attempts there is little confidence so far a Patty suit could be made.

 

When we watch H2 channels show Bigfoot the definitive guide no of the 5 sitting at the table think the PGF looks fake in any way. The 2 doubters base this entirely on the background and mud flung at Patterson himself.  It has nothing to do with "Science says Bigfoot is impossible."   "I think what I see on the film looks quite fake and here is why"  and so on.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

 Cannot and has not been proven fake...

But so not real,

 

Don't placate me mate.

 

A bloke in a suit is all there is.

 

Even Munns won't discredit a Bloke in a suit at the end of the day.

 

I don't think Munns expert observations can do anything for someone who knows little of what he is talking about based on his 0% ability to refute what he has said.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

 

Looks like a bloke in a suit to me.

Of course it does . You have closed your mind on it being anything else. I am not coming down on you so to speak.  I share  your non belief in Sasquatch. However, this film can  not  and has not been proven a fake.   To think otherwise is just plain nonsense. In other words  A  bloke in a suit is  not proven.

 

 Cannot and has not been proven fake...

 

But so not real,

 

Don't placate me mate.

 

A bloke in a suit is all there is.

 

Even Munns won't discredit a Bloke in a suit at the end of the day.

 

 

 

Bill can defend himself.  I would say I would like to read the, "Munns is wrong report"  I have not seen such a report yet but would honestly consider it.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I had posted that info for you already, Bill  ..... and the same guy who allegedly stored his Patty suit re-creation under a garage roof said to have collapsed ignored what you have said.  I just consider the source.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

I will not hesitate to totally discredit the bloke in a suit claim.

 

In my book, chapter 11, page 287, (the Conclusions chapter), I wrote "The inescapable conclusion, however, is that the PGF is simply not a fake, not a hoax, and Patty is something biologically real, as she appears, and is not a human in a fur costume and face mask." I can't imagine anyone failing to understand that statement, but some people obviously fail at reading comprehension.

 

Bill

 

 

 

You should also consider the possibility, Bill, that some are not here for any oher reason than to "stir the pot." Using that as a frame work puts a lot of the material posted into a different light.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

You nailed it, Mike.  Munns writes a detailed book based on facts pertaining to his countless years of mastering his craft .... the rebuttal is someone claiming its a boke in a suit who had not the good sense than to allegedly build and store his Patty suit creation under a weakened garage roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What I find really striking in that final second or two is the massive broadness of the shoulders...

The problem with this footage is that it was derived from Green's 3rd gen 50% zoomed copy of the PGF, which was on the "Legend Meets Science" DVD. Unfortunately, many DVD players distort still frames extracted from a DVD by stretching their horizontal aspect up to 40%. This makes Patty look wider than she actually was. So be wary that this video exaggerates Patty's width by an unknown degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Munns has scans of the frames you fellas are talking about that was taken from a copy Green had made right from the camera original and on 16mm film.  Maybe Bill can post one of the more clearer views if it helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

When Gimlin states he saw Patty in real life and he was not as impressed with the film as he compared it to the detail he saw.  He was glad Roger got as much of it as he did on film but said he was impressed with the massiveness and the muscles.   He said something along the lines of "what I saw was a lot more detail and the massive muscles" and so on.

 

I compare the film vs reality like this recent Lunar Eclipse.  People has posted pics of it online but is not as impressive or detailed as seeing it with your own eyes.  The pics taken don't come close to the detail we see in our real life vision.

 

Backdoc

 

I remember seeing Bob Gimlin on a TV show quite a few years ago although I can't remember who all was on the show besides Bob. One thing I do remember is Bob saying something very similar to what you have mentioned. He said something very close to "you could see the huge muscles moving under the fur".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

^^

 

 who allegedly stored his Patty suit re-creation under a garage roof said to have collapsed ignored what you have said. 

Wait, that's what "happened" to Squatchy's re-creation suit?  :sarcastichand:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^^^The unbelievable...oh wait...was it believable to begin with...hmmmm.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Squatchy you're busted! Only a fire can destroy a suit, not a collapsed building. How can that destroy suit fabric? You probably tried to make a suit but soon found out how difficult it was, then concocted a ridiculous story about how your suit got destroyed. Would YOU believe your own story? You either actually tried to make a suit and failed so miserably that your now think Patty might be real or you are flat out lying about trying to create a suit in the 1st place. So Squatchy, which is it? Are you just a die-hard, p-skeptic here to stir the pot, or what? ;)

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

McSqatch never mentioned a collapsed roof destroying all his evidence until people started wanted to see some sample proof that he was even working on such a project. I always thought something   holdingnosesmiley_zps11e319a7.gif   (stunk) about that story.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...