Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

This is a great comparison of Bob and Patty, that Squatchy posted earlier....it shows conclusively that Bob H. could not possibly have been Patty...

 

 

BobSuitPattyArmCompAG1_zpsx69s5ehf.gif

 

 

In that comparison...their arm lengths match....yet Bob H. is wearing 'hand extensions', and the PGF filmed subject is not....(as evidenced by the two-frame animation). 

 

You simply cannot extend the length of an average human's lower-arm....and end-up with a lower-arm that appears relatively short. 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ Exactly.  Although, there are plenty of distorted image comparisons out there indicating that Patty has human proportions and some of those can be very convincing!  :D

 

3-similarities.jpg

Edited by xspider1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Nice comparison with Big Bird, xspider....I can see how that could be convincing, to some people! ;)

 

Here is another comparison of 'arm proportion'...using the image of that impressive monkey suit....(with the highly realistic feet :lol: )...

 

MonkeyMan%20Patty%20ArmComp1_zpszaffyefp

 

 

Again....the length of Patty's lower-arm is inconsistent with a human subject wearing a 'hand extension'. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

^

 

Nice comparison with Big Bird, xspider....I can see how that could be convincing, to some people! ;)

 

Here is another comparison of 'arm proportion'...using the image of that impressive monkey suit....(with the highly realistic feet :lol: )...

 

MonkeyMan%20Patty%20ArmComp1_zpszaffyefp

 

 

Again....the length of Patty's lower-arm is inconsistent with a human subject wearing a 'hand extension'. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sweaty, you know how it's often said in contracts the devil's in the details? In this case, in trying to re-create Patty using 1967 technology, the devil's in the arm length and arm proportions. And you have shown several times on here how Patty simply cannot be a human in a suit. And when talking about arm extensions, we can't forget Patty's fingers are more curled in some frames and less curled in others. Has anyone ever shown a 1967 arm extension that allowed a person in a fur suit to do this?

 

In seeing Patty by side with Bob H., it shows the level of sophistication and expertise it would take to try to re-create Patty; not to mention the amount of money and time it would also take. (I know I've said it before); if Disney and Universal didn't think they could do it, why does anyone think a couple of cowboys could? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We see a suit on TV or on a movie (esp in the 1960's 70's and 80s) and we see human proportions.  It is then no mystery a man in a suit could be in there for movies which are not controversial.  Later the use of computers blur the line better.  (see actors legs disappear in Forrest Gump).  We can look at Star Wars and know if there are scenes where R2D2 has a person inside that person must be a very tiny person.

 

Visually on any decent look at an enhanced PGF it looks hard to fit a man in there.  Most inherently just know this is the case.  That is why It doesn't take long for our minds to come up reasons to tell ourselves it must somehow be a man in a suit.  We might come up with extenders and so on.  We do this because in our minds the alternative is troubling on some man ape level to consider we are looking at something so closely resembling ourselves. Thus, some mental defense mechanism kicks in and we come up with 'how' no matter how implausible.  Peter Burke on one of the shows how a costume can have hand extenders using a modern high dollar ape suit to demonstrate. The reason he is even demonstrating it comes for the fact Patty's arms look longer to him and others. Why else is Burke even talking about it?

 

When someone is in an obvious costume our minds are not left to fill in why.  When something like the PGF comes along, we are left to strain our minds to fill in the 'how?' because of the ramifications otherwise would mean this is a real creature.

 

One of my problems is the 'how' many propose is nearly impossible in many cases and unlikely in most of them.

 

A man in a suit holding sticks in his hands to extend the arms  <---------just one of the many crazy notions

 

Some can feel emotionally safe by just saying, "It is a hoax somehow.." and that somehow gives then the medicine they need.  Few things indicate 'I don't know and I have no clue or proof" like the word 'somehow'

 

The proportions are out of bounds.  The arms are longer.  Those are facts.  What those observations mean is the issue.  If one wishes to conclude it is a hoax, then it should be easy to show us why.  Just show us.

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator
16 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Here's another comparison

 

morriscomp.jpg

 

and another comparison

 

1446665247148.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to Squatchy in presenting these images.

 

The latter three comparisons were deleted as the problems with them are rather obvious and no attempt at analysis was made by whoever produced them. It is the first two comparisons shown here are the ones to debunk. Of those, the latter, with Tom Pate, has been previously debunked. If you look at the image you will see that the red lines are not really right. The one for the elbow is off, the one for the wrist is off; the head is off as is the shoulder. IOW, this is an argument for Patty not being a person in a suit.

 

I'm not aware of the first image comparison being debunked. But its easy to do. The first thing that is easy to spot is that the obvious 'suit' image is larger (and grainier- you would think a clearer image would be available since it was staged to begin with...). That slight largeness helps in setting up some of the lines. However, if you look at the arm angles (how much swing from the body) you see that the suit image does not have as much arm swing. Yet the line is there as if somehow this should mean that the arm lengths are the same; anyone knowing a little bit about geometry knows the problem I'm talking about. The arm simply is not as long. You can prove this by putting the edge of a piece of paper to your screen on the Patty image, going from where the line is (her fingertips) to where her shoulder is. Mark that and compare to the other image. You will see instantly that Patty's arm is longer.

 

Now let's look at the knee line. Conveniently, the fingertip line also runs through Patty's hip area, so we will have an easy time of this one. I think you can see that in the suit image, the thigh angle from the hip is again not as acute as in the Patty image; once again the portrayal is as if the two are the same length when clearly they are not. Take that same bit of paper and measure from Patty's kneecap where the line is to the middle of her thigh where it intersects the red fingertip line. This looks like a pretty good guess at her hip- now move that over to the suit kneecap and line it up on the hip area and you will again see that there is an obvious problem.

 

Whoever set this up did a sloppy job and was obviously trying to make Patty be a bloke inna suit without having sat down and understood her dimensions and ratios. This seems to be typical of a skeptic not really taking the time to see what is going on- the only skeptic on this forum who has flown in the face of this so far is PattersonGimlin, who acknowledges that Patty in no way can be BobH inna suit.

 

Both of these photo comparisons are now debunked. You might want to bookmark this page in case these come up again. No need in repeating the work.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

You do not know with any certainty where Patty's elbow actually is. This is the best you get...

swinging_breasts.gif

 

 

 

On September 8, 2016 at 1:25 AM, xspider1 said:

Long states that he's "got a case" where a Gimlin accepted stolen plywood and nails then he immediately asks Gimlin if he was arrested for "stealing stolen property"??  Those are two different things entirely. 

 

#readfail

 

#quotefail

 

#writefail

 

Try again...

 

Long: "Let me ask you: Have you ever been arrested? I've got a case on a Robert E. Gimlin accepting stolen plywood and nails. Was that you?"

 

Gimlin: "No. Not me. There's about five Robert E. Gimlins."

 

Long: "So you've never been arrested for accepting stolen property."

 

Gimlin: "I've never been arrested for anything, you know. In fact, I'm a good Christian man and I live a Christian life."

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yet you came up with this ...

 

"And yes, I think Patty's arm is Bob's arm in a loose fitting suit arm..."

Bigpattyg.jpg

Edited by PBeaton
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, kitakaze said:

You do not know with any certainty where Patty's elbow actually is. This is the best you get...

 

 

I know that the filmed subject was not wearing any 'hand extension', of any type.  The images show that conclusively. 

 

And that, in turn, means that the bending seen on Patty's arm......the elbow...

 

PattyF310-Matt-ArmComp9_zpscde132c0.jpg

 

 

...the wrist...

 

RightHandWristBendAG2_zps8fzic1id.gif

 

....and the fingers...

 

PattyFingersComp2_zps5a57a98c.jpg

 

 

.....must all be at the subject's actual skeletal joints. 

 

And those joint locations are not those of a modern human skeleton. :)

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
13 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

Sweaty, you know how it's often said in contracts the devil's in the details? In this case, in trying to re-create Patty using 1967 technology, the devil's in the arm length and arm proportions. And you have shown several times on here how Patty simply cannot be a human in a suit.

 

 

It sure is the finer details which matter, Okie. :)

 

It's not simply a matter of arm length....it's the proportion of the arm which is most significant. 

 

Quote

And when talking about arm extensions, we can't forget Patty's fingers are more curled in some frames and less curled in others. Has anyone ever shown a 1967 arm extension that allowed a person in a fur suit to do this?

 

 

Even if a 'hand extension' could be made which allowed for remote control of the fingers, Okie...it wouldn't matter...since it can be clearly demonstrated that the PGF subject wasn't wearing extensions. 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ True that.  For some reason, the location of Patty's elbows is a complete mystery for some PGf skeptics.  (It's where her arms bend- at a point which is proportionally lower than on human arms) :o

 

kitakaze - this is an image capture from the link that you posted here on 9-2 trying to dig up some dirt on Bob G:

 

huh-what.jpg

 

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 11:06 PM, kitakaze said:

 

Can you see where that says "stealing stolen property"?  It won't help your #career-debunk-fail but, in the future, it might be a good idea to read the links you post before posting them?

 

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Actually, Gimlin was arrested for stealing.

 

This is from his arrest warrant...

 

ROBERT E. GIMLIN, ELLSWORTH WRIGHT and HOWARD GOODELL on or about December 23, 1961, and December 27, 1961, in Yakima County, Washington, each then and there being, did each then and there knowingly, willfully and feloniously, and with intent to deprive the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away personal property of another, to-wit: plywood, of a value greater than $75, lawful money of the United States of America, the property of Arthur Koch. -MoB, p. 169-170

 

Gimlin's bail was set at $3000. June 11, 1962 Gimlin's lawyer requested a separate trial for Gimlin. October 4, 1962, Gimlin filed a plea of guilty. March 5, 1963, Gimlin filed a motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. On March 7, 1963 it was dismissed.

 

So when Greg Long asked Gimlin this...

 

Long: "Let me ask you: Have you ever been arrested? I've got a case on a Robert E. Gimlin accepting stolen plywood and nails. Was that you?"

 

And Gimlin plays dumb and suggests some other Robert. E. Gimlin...

 

Gimlin: "No. Not me. There's about five Robert E. Gimlins."

 

That's a straight up lie. 

 

So much for zero deception.

 

I thanked him and hung up. Puzzled, I rechecked my 1962 case file on Robert E. Gimlin. I noted that a William E. Gimlin and a Dola Gimlin, as sureties, had posted a bond for $3000 on behalf of Robert E. Gimlin. Each of their signatures, including that of Robert E. Gimlin, was on the bail bond. Inquisitive, I phoned Lillie Gimlin in Yakima, who I discovered was Bob Gimlin's sister-in-law. I described my book project and that Bob didn't give interviews and that I was trying to discover the indetities of William E. and Dola Gimlin.

 

"They are Bob Gimlin's parents. They are no longer alive."

 

"Thank you." - MoB, p. 423

 

Straight up lied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
On September 8, 2016 at 9:14 AM, kitakaze said:

 

PattyTurningAG2.gif

 

On September 8, 2016 at 10:49 AM, MIB said:

Kit -

 

The images you present that are reverse-direction appear to be, uh, "less than authentic" doctored images, in other words, hoaxed.   What's their claimed background and provenance?

 

MIB

 

The one in colour is cibachrome F339 as designated here...

36945d06.png

 

The black and white is originally from MK Davis doing a colour split as shown here...
 

 

And the gif is from SweatyYeti...

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/PattyTurningAG2.gif

 

Would you like to say it was either MK Davis or SweatyYeti doing the hoaxing that you refer to, or both?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was he charged ?

 

"Straight up lied."  Would that be like your evidence Roger hoaxed all those casts prior to the PGF ?

Edited by PBeaton
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

He was charged when the warrant for his arrest was issued on February 20, 1962. He would be notified of the charge when he was arrested and taken into custody. I think you are confusing the difference between charged and convicted. It was not until over a year after the arrest warrant was issued that the case was dismissed.

 

It's irrelevant to the nature of how Gimlin lied, whether he was convicted or not. When Long has the case file in front of him and asks Gimlin about it...

 

Long: "Let me ask you: Have you ever been arrested? I've got a case on a Robert E. Gimlin accepting stolen plywood and nails. Was that you?"

 

And Gimlin plays dumb and suggests some other Robert. E. Gimlin...

 

Gimlin: "No. Not me. There's about five Robert E. Gimlins."

 

Gimlin knew exactly what Long was referring to, that the case of the stolen plywood was him, not some other Robert E. Gimlin. He could have easily clarified that the case was dismissed but he chose to lie and pretend it was someone else.

 

Conviction of theft is not the deception. Lying about the case and suggesting someone else is the deception.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor pinned this topic
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor locked and pinned this topic
×
×
  • Create New...