Jump to content
xspider1

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities?

Recommended Posts

SWWASAS
On 3/1/2018 at 9:29 AM, xspider1 said:

I think your question does not contain enough detail to even consider, Twist.  If BG just came out and said "Oh, btw, it was a hoax" and refused to say anything else at all (a scenario which I give exactly zero chance of ever happening) then I would have a difficult time believing that.  After-all, that would have to mean that he had been lying for over 50 years and suddenly decided to tell the truth, but not back it up.  If, however, it had been a hoax (no way) and if BG had been involved in the hoax (no way) then he would certainly have enough information to make almost anyone believe just that.  So, it's a hypothetical question which, imo, just doesn't work.

Recently I have been exposed to people who are getting varying degrees of senile dementia.   I did not know if Bob's family  has any history of that but it could be in a few years Bob will not remember anything about the event or he could remember that event in great detail and not know his own wife.   That is how age related memory loss works.   Skeptics have always leaped on any discrepancies in his memory from what he says giving presentations,   as evidence his story is just that.    .      Those presentations are passed off as informal talks but are usually part of any conference or convention he attends.    .     He could never have known 50 years ago his statements over decades would be parsed for discrepancies.   Anyway what I am getting to is that someday he might have no idea what happened in 1967.    Certainly at present he enjoys the attention and adulation and just because of that would be motivated to avoid recanting anything.    Not that I think there is anything to recant.  .   

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Pat wrote:

Quote

The vertical elevation of the heel which suggests midfoot flexibility which correlates to the midfoot flexibility evident in the tracks

 

 

I would be willing to bet, Pat.....that that near-vertical lift of Patty's left foot absolutely cannot be replicated, by a human....wearing costume feet.....regular footwear on his feet....or just his own two everyday feet.  ;)  

 

Forget replicating the entire package....(that will never be done....and most certainly never, by a thousand Starling babble-filled posts :haha:  ).....this one detail is probably beyond being replicable.

 

Especially considering that Patty's right foot does not even appear to replicate it. The lift of her left foot is so odd/extreme, that I wouldn't be surprised if her left foot was double-jointed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Tom-Pate.jpgfotclearance.gif

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starling
4 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

Maybe reminder is needed. When talking about graininess and blurriness in the PGF and does it hide some features, let's remember there are several aspects of the film that graininess and blurriness have no effect on and does not change.

Among them are:

The depth of Patty's tracks and how they compare to the human tracks left behind.

The length of Patty's stride/step.

The amount of time it took Patty to cross the sandbar. As I understand people that have tried to duplicate Patt'sy crossing of the sandbar failed to do it in the same amount of time as Patty. And they weren't even wearing a fur suit.

The nonhuman length of Patty's arms, with no extensions.

The curling and uncurling of the fingers.

The nonhuman body proportions.

The bent knee gait and the lateral rotation of the knees as Patty walked. My impression is this type of gait for a Bigfoot wasn't known until the PGF was studied.

I'm sure there's more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no verifiable link between the filmed subject and any of the claimed tracks.

6 hours ago, PBeaton said:

"What's hilarious is I'm smart enough to give Bigfoot the benefit of the doubt.."

Image result for spitting out coffee gif

 

starling's cockamamie theory.JPG

 

From the guy who claimed Roger filmed his own footprints for reel two, when reel two shows them walkin' along side those very footprints etc ! An the kiddy boot...haha !  ;);) 

 

 

Just exactly where is this reel 2 filmed record that shows this?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
4 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

The depth of Patty's tracks and how they compare to the human tracks left behind.

The length of Patty's stride/step.

 

As Starling just stated in a few minutes ago: "there is absolutely no verifiable link between the filmed subject and any of the claimed tracks "

 

 

4 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

The amount of time it took Patty to cross the sandbar. As I understand people that have tried to duplicate Patt'sy crossing of the sandbar failed to do it in the same amount of time as Patty. And they weren't even wearing a fur suit.

 

It all depends which setting (fps) was used on the camera, and how accurate the camera was calibrated. 18 fps has never been confirmed.

 

 

4 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

The nonhuman length of Patty's arms, with no extensions.

 

body points.gif

 

(see also the Tom Pate image in my previous post)

 

 

4 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

The curling and uncurling of the fingers.

 

Pattys-Hand-no-flex (1).giffingermovementlol.gif

 

 

4 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

The nonhuman body proportions.

 

see Tom Pate and the first image in this post.

 

 

4 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

The bent knee gait and the lateral rotation of the knees as Patty walked. My impression is this type of gait for a Bigfoot wasn't known until the PGF was studied.

I'm sure there's more.

 

Bob can't bend his knees like a young man could but looky here

 

If that doesn't do it you should check Groucho Marx using a compliant gait.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ Of the many failed attempts to discredit the PGf, the video above is among the worst.  Seriously, can you not see that BH locks his knees when walking? (That's not a compliant gait.)  And, what happened to Patty's leg's?  That looks ridiculous.:rofl:    However, that video does indicate that her arms were proportionally much longer than his, thanks for that.

I should say, posting the video above is among the worst attempts to discredit the PGf.  That video may have originally been intended to demonstrate that the two subjects are vastly different.  

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

^^^ refers to a guy in a suit as 'her' 

 

That was filmed decades  after 1967

 

Do you think Patty can still lock knees like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

I'm sure most people have seen this before but here is a video about shin rise in the trailing leg while walking; it shows Patty's shin rise compared to Bob H. and other humans. I'm going to spoil the ending: Patty has a very different shin rise than Bob H. and other humans. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm 99.9% sure no one knew this prior to the PGF. Was this common knowledge in Yakima, WA? ;)

It brings up the question; If the film is a man in a suit, where did the actor come up with the idea to bring his trailing leg up higher than humans normally do? Why would he think that's how a Bigfoot should walk? And where did he get the idea to rotate his knees laterally as he walked? And why did he think that's also something a Bigfoot would do when it walked?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Good video link, OkieFoot.  Some will say she bent her knees to avoid tripping over costume slipper feet.  To me it looks like enough knee bend not to trip over what appears to be about 1/2 Ape, 1/2 Human feet.  Call me old-fashioned I guess.   :thumbsup:

 

"Do you think Patty can still lock knees like that?" - McSquatch  The point is that her knees do not lock.  Did you miss that minor exact opposite detail that negates everything you just said?  really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I know eh, hilarious ! 

It is rather funny ! This is just the side view, can you just imagine the difference when it came to width ! hahaha ! Laughable ! Funnier yet, he uses it as evidence, then when it's pointed out how bad it is, tries to claim a different filmin' date ! haha ! Then again, he's recently presented clear BS non PGF track evidence as evidence, laughed about it sayin' prove it, think I did easy enough, but hey, that goes to his credibility or lack there of.

Image may contain: one or more peopleImage may contain: one or more people and outdoor

He also came up with this one, I just put the markers on it.

bob an patty.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

I meant to add this in the earlier post.

In the video you see Patty raise her trailing leg higher than humans do; 21 degrees to be more exact. I meant to add that you also see the figure in the Stacy Brown thermal footage bring it's trailing leg higher than humans and even higher than Patty did; 89 degrees compared to Patty's 73 degrees.

You see it in the first photo and also about a third of the way down where Cliff drew yellow lines showing the angle of the knee bend and states it bent at 89 degrees. (I hope the link works.) 

http://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/the-brown-footage/

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

It is pretty laughable, how the skeptics claim that "Roger made the film just fuzzy enough to make the suit look realistic"......when it is, in fact, the skeptics who choose to use the fuzziest images possible, to make their Patty/Bob........ "matches"...

 

Bobby_Balony_Patty_Comp1.jpg

 

 

Here is a clearer look at the reality of the situation...(using less fuzzy imagery)...

 

F347-_F360-_Arm_Bend-_Bob-_AG2.gif

 

 

And, a comparison with Matt Crowley....in a very similar body pose as Patty...

 

F347-_F360-_Arm_Bend-_Matt-_AG1.gif

 

 

It looks to me like the 'arm proportions' don't quite match-up. :) 

 

 

 

 

 

"This just in"...      Ted_Baxter2.jpg     .....another comparison with "Bobby the Bigfoot"....wearing his 'hand extensions'...

 

 

Patty_Arm_Bending_Bobby_Ruggy_AG1.gif

 

 

As can be clearly seen....using clearer images....the PGF subject has no extensions on it's arms.

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starling

Of course footers have to discredit Bob H!

 

 Of course they have to claim his inconsistencies outweigh those of Roger's and Bob G's (which are many). Of course they have to claim he doesn't match the guy in the suit.

 

If they don't do that...they don't get to keep their magical man-ape.

 

And in their minds, logically, that won't fly. 

 

Quote

PBeaton: From the guy who claimed Roger filmed his own footprints for reel two, when reel two shows them walkin' along side those very footprints etc ! 

 

Still waiting, Pat :) Where is the film record of which you speak?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Taking the clear, demonstrable lack of arm extensions on Patty one step further.....one significant consequence of it, is that the wrist and finger bending visible on Patty must be occurring at the film subject's actual skeletal joints...

 

Patty_Fingers_Curl1_B.jpg

 

 

F61-_F307_Finger_Bend_Rotated_AG2_Crop1.

 

 

It has to be....since there is no extension to disguise/hide that part of the subject's anatomy within.  :)  

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Starling, no one has to discredit Bob H.; he's done a good job of that all by himself. He couldn't tell the same story the same way twice if he was reading it off a piece of paper. 

 

 

1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

Taking the clear, demonstrable lack of arm extensions on Patty one step further.....one significant consequence of it, is that the wrist and finger bending visible on Patty must be occurring at the film subject's actual skeletal joints...

 

Patty_Fingers_Curl1_B.jpg

 

 

F61-_F307_Finger_Bend_Rotated_AG2_Crop1.

 

 

It has to be....since there is no extension to disguise/hide that part of the subject's anatomy within.  :)  

 

Sweaty, the top pictures are very telling. And I agree 100%; the wrist bend and finger curl has to happen at the skeletal joint itself. Especially for the finger curl, the only way that could happen would be for the person's hand to completely fill a costume glove, like someone wearing form fitting gloves, such as surgical gloves. 

If we can accept what ThinkerThunker says in "Cracking the Bigfoot Code", the odds of a human having a hand the size of Pattys' would be very small. TT says Patty's hands look like "catchers mitts" compared to Bob H.'s hands. 

And there are quite a few witnesses in various sightings reports that specifically noticed and mentioned in the report  how big the creature's hands were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...