Jump to content
xspider1

Zero Reasons To Consider The Pgf A Hoax

Recommended Posts

xspider1

Thank-you for understanding that I meant for the 'IBWP' re-appearance from 'extinction' as a comparison to Bigfoot's 'reappearance' from extinction (maybe they are descendants of Gigantopithecus??).  

 

First off though, it would be great if Bigfoot skeptics could get over the all-or-nothing mentality.  A habituated Bigfoot family ordering Dominos pizza and watching Ellen everyday does not need to exist for Patty to be real.    

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

So I misunderstood your analogy between the IBWP and BF. 

 

Sorry, I did not get your analogy to be based on their current existan....nope not the same, mode of transportati....wait nope, their habita.....wait nope, their siz.........nope not that either.   What was the analogy about again? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

The analogy is about both species 're-appearing from extinction'.  An analogy does not need for everything to be similar (or, else there would never be any analogies).  I hope that helps. 

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

The analogy is about both species 're-appearing from extinction'.  An analogy does not need for everything to be similar (or, else there would never be any analogies).  I hope that helps. 

Wait, what species are you talking about?? did you just use an analogy regarding Giganto vs. IBWP in a thread about the PGF film?  The PGF film is in regards to Patty, thus BF, you wouldn't be posting off topic would you?  it seems there has some been some complaining lately about Crow posting off topic by proponents in the PGF section of BFF, I would hate for proponents to be guilty of a similar transgression.   :no:  :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Nope.  I think Gigantopithecus (which according to this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1208_051208_giant_ape.html was discovered by a German paleontologist in 1935 when he picked up a strange, heavy tooth in a Chinese apothecary that was labeled as a "dragon tooth")  fits quite well into the subject of 'Zero Reasons to Consider the PGf a Hoax'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I guess then we are allowed, per your examples, allowed to use any primate as an analogy to BF. Guess we should shut down the "could patty be darted thread"  She can be considered a primate thus capable of being darted as other apes have been.  At least we resolved something in this thread,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ That gets my vote, TWIST!  8  B

 

Great-apes exhibit many lines in their hair and skin patterns, aether-drift.  So, again the Patterson-Gimlin film subject is (in my opinion) consistent with other real animals.  

 

post-131-0-63555300-1453353438_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

^ That gets my vote, TWIST!  8  B

 

Great-apes exhibit many lines in their hair and skin patterns, aether-drift.  So, again the Patterson-Gimlin film subject is (in my opinion) consistent with other real animals.  

 

attachicon.gifPatty-lines.jpg

 

I always smile Xspider when we can agree on a subject.  It makes me thing there is hope of two sides coming together in this world. :) lol.

 

Now to stretch this past statement by Xspider a bit, could a suit synthetically made, possibly, and I am just asking you to consider the possibility, "show" a mouth movement or "muscle movement" by faux hair moving in relation to the material it is attached to ?  I'm asking off the assumption we are acknowledging that muscle and hair movement are caused by skin patterns they are attached to, and of course only shown to us by a rather blurry video from the 60's ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Let us not forget that the original Patterson film was not what we see today. Muscle movement was documented as being seen in the early prints. Here is one of the chest muscle movement and the stretching of the hide.

greenarrow-1_zpsbpxwsrb2.gif

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Once again BH, I see what you are pointing out and can see some kind of movement.  What we once again disagree on is being able to conclude exactly what is being seen.  This could be movement in both a suit or a living breathing animal.  If it is a suit it is not unreasonable to assume that the suit itself will move and shift on the person wearing it as they walk and move around.  If it is a living breathing animal then it is most likely chest muscle as you believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

I believe the only issue here has ever been whether or not suit makers had the ability to create flexible working lower face muscles and lips in 1967. Someone can correct me if I am wrong - was not that ability first demonstrated much later on and was very limited. I would defer that capability of that being around in 1967 to Bill Munns.

 

Furthermore, I thought I made mention to this as one element of Patty being real and that when considered to the depth of her tracks among other things .... a man in a suit of the 60's falls out of the race for probable consideration - does it not? Let us keep in mind that this has been alleged to be a suit that Patterson created. Does someone wish to suggest that Roger created a head with working facial muscles and lips for this one of a kind suit that is only found in a few brief moments within the film that no one could possibly have noticed on a mere running of the 16MM film at that time. I would sincerely hope not.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

If it was a man made fur suit in the PGF, it's very strange the suitmaker has kept quiet all these years, never revealing to anybody how he made this brilliant suit with all those extraordinary details that no one else had ever come up with before. 

It seems like his suits would be in big demand and that he could have made a lot of money. Apparently he had suit making abilities no one else possessed since no one else has been able to duplicate the PGF suit in 48 years. 

If the PGF is fake, wouldn't this have to be true?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teegunn

How did they make a suit that shows clear muscle flexing and contracting?  The calves especially show very clear muscle movement - natural calf muscle movement that is quite distinct and clear.  I don't know if that would even be possible to incorporate in a suit today.  It's one of those things that really lend an opinion of very hard to be a fake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

If it was a man made fur suit in the PGF, it's very strange the suitmaker has kept quiet all these years, never revealing to anybody how he made this brilliant suit with all those extraordinary details that no one else had ever come up with before. 

It seems like his suits would be in big demand and that he could have made a lot of money. Apparently he had suit making abilities no one else possessed since no one else has been able to duplicate the PGF suit in 48 years. 

If the PGF is fake, wouldn't this have to be true?

 

 

It is a big hole in the hoax scenario, Okie. 

 

As a matter of fact, kitakaze has stated that even he does not know who "created the suit".....and he claims to have received three confessions from....(and I quote)...."sources of the PGF". 

 

48 years of world-wide fame....and we have no-one with a credible claim of being either the "suit wearer'....or the "suit creator". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...