Jump to content

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


xspider1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Moderator

Even if Gimlin was in on it, it can only be real.

 

I can't imagine anyone submitting to surgery to one's limbs just so they could walk in a suit for a minute.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine any of the things 'skeptics' have to imagine - isn't that skeptical! - so they can stay where they are on this.

 

It doesn't matter who 'was in on it' (and never mind that the article's already been written how these guys did every single thing you DON'T do if you want your suit hoax to hold up).  The only thing that matters is what is on the film, and isn't it the ultimate flight of fancy - isn't that skeptical! - that skeptics have even started attacking *that,* as if common human sense doesn't tell every one of us operating with a full deck that the only thing that matters is what is on the film.

http://bigfootproject.com/articles/how_not_to_plan.html

There
you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ That's a really good list, DWA.  The "impossible time-line" always seemed like a no-brainer to me.  I mean, why would any hoaxer make that up?  Here are a few more zingers, imo:

 

Be associated with and ridiculed for trying to prove Bigfoot (and then go out and get a film yourself instead of letting someone else be the patsy while you take the money.)

Make sure to "shake the camera" to blur the images (until you get close)  what!?  lol

Don't pay your Bigfoot "actor" a dime.

Think of all of the above (plus a lot more) and then make it happen as a hoax (like no one has ever done).

I bet this list could go on and on.  8 ) 

 

zinger.jpg

 

(^ btw, I don't recommend eating those ^  8 X

Edited by xspider1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator
9 hours ago, xspider1 said:

^ That's a really good list, DWA.  The "impossible time-line" always seemed like a no-brainer to me.  I mean, why would any hoaxer make that up?  Here are a few more zingers, imo:

 

Be associated with and ridiculed for trying to prove Bigfoot (and then go out and get a film yourself instead of letting someone else be the patsy while you take the money.)

Make sure to "shake the camera" to blur the images (until you get close)  what!?  lol

Don't pay your Bigfoot "actor" a dime.

Think of all of the above (plus a lot more) and then make it happen as a hoax (like no one has ever done).

I bet this list could go on and on.  8 ) 

 

zinger.jpg

 

(^ btw, I don't recommend eating those ^  8 X

 

That's the perfect question about the "impossible" timeline. If Roger was making a fake film, how does making up a tight timeline make the film more believable? How does that help sell the film? Judging from the way people have tried to use the timeline to try and prove the PGF was a hoax, I would say making up a tight timeline would have the opposite effect. I wonder if the two Russian scientists that analyzed the film were concerned about the timeline? 

 

If RP had made a fake film, he could have made it anytime; he wasn't limited to a Friday and he wasn't limited to October or even limited to Northern Calif. So why didn't he just make the film on any weekday before Friday and then go back to Yakima and have the film developed the next day. Why wait around until Friday night?  

So, why go the trouble to create a fake timeline that seems impossible to some? How does this help Roger? 

If we knew the details, I'd bet a dollar we would find everything happened just as it's been said to have happened. After all, the film was in Al's hands two days later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really is baffling...kitakaze would have us believe these three cowboys created a costume Hollywood couldn't, then after filmin' their hoaxed film, they decided to make it even more incredible, let's create an impossible timeline to match their impossible hoax ! Then...one...cut out the other two of any monetary rewards, fillin' his pockets...while the other two were content to sit there...ya...sure.   ;)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

I've been maintaining for years now that any of the backstory dredged up or made up to make the film less credible is all obfuscation. The real thing is even that the film can't be duplicated with a person in a suit; its that the joint locations are far enough off that it can't be explained in that way at all.

 

I've also maintained that the PGF is better proof than a body on slab. This for the simple reason that it can be examined by anybody that has access to YouTube whereas a body on a slab can't and won't be examined by nearly everybody. So the claim of a body on a slab will always be hearsay where the film is not only easily viewed, its also possible to analyze what is being seen. Its this latter fact that allows us to see that Patty's joints just are not right for her to be a human. That's a pretty big deal.

 

My recommendation is when the obfuscation starts, don't go for the hook. Just stay on target and ask for an explanation of why Patty's joints don't line up with that of a human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree. The film falls far short of a body on a slab than can be documented, examined and retested.

A wonderful  beautiful grainy film, but certainly not proof positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, salubrious said:

I've been maintaining for years now that any of the backstory dredged up or made up to make the film less credible is all obfuscation. The real thing is even that the film can't be duplicated with a person in a suit; its that the joint locations are far enough off that it can't be explained in that way at all.

There does seem to be an active effort to avoid trying to make a suit. Ask a skeptic to mimic the PGF walk and they line up to do this. They may even award a grade of 'excellent' to a pretty poor attempt.  So when it comes to mimicking the Patty walk they jump at the chance.  But what about making the suit?  The skeptic will maintain they don't have to make a suit because the believer is so blinded any suit they make not matter how good would not convince the believer.  A good suit replica would demonstrate to the satisfaction of most people Patty was a man in a suit. You are never going to convince 100% but you will convince nearly everyone.  The problem is such a suit has not been undertaken. Walk like Patty?  Gladly.  Make a suit like 2 cowboys did?  "Hey let me show you some modern stretch fur"

 

The joint locations and other things make it problematic right from the start.  This why they don't start.

 

Make such a suit and show its' function and I will gladly be convinced.   Fail to do this in 50 years can only suggest one thing.  The skeptics are quick to mimic the walk and other things but run like a Vampire to Garlic when the suit challenge is presented. 

 

Task                                                            Result

 

Try to walk like Patty                                  People try all the time

                                                                   Stanford study funded to try to do this.

 

Try to make a Patty suit

which behaves in a Patty way                    TALK TALK TALK TALK TALK

 

 

 

1 hour ago, salubrious said:

I've also maintained that the PGF is better proof than a body on slab.

The film is valuable but nothing would beat a body on a slab.  The proof does not get any better than that. It is true anyone can pull up the film and look at it.  It is also true not everyone would get direct access to a body.  However, if someone said, "Our society examined the film, and we conclude it is a real animal" that would still not convince many as they see it differently.  If they said, "these ten scientists examined the Body and we conclude it is a creature we have never encountered before. This IS bigfoot"   <---that would convinced 99.999999%

 

BD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

The film is valuable but nothing would beat a body on a slab.  The proof does not get any better than that. It is true anyone can pull up the film and look at it.  It is also true not everyone would get direct access to a body.  However, if someone said, "Our society examined the film, and we conclude it is a real animal" that would still not convince many as they see it differently.  If they said, "these ten scientists examined the Body and we conclude it is a creature we have never encountered before. This IS bigfoot"   <---that would convinced 99.999999%

 

BD

^^ I can think of one example where 98% of scientists are all in agreement and yet the topic on which they all agree is still a matter of intense debate despite the science. Forum rules do not allow me to go any further on the topic as some regard it as politics which is verbotin in the General section. Given that the science is so well-understood on that topic, one on which a monster formerly of joke and myth suddenly becomes real strikes me as 'not likely' no matter how many scientists are independently involved.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

 

I am impressed with the film.  The body would be better. I mean, you could even film the body even if it was dead.  If it was alive, then it is obviously easier to study than the film.  My position is most scientist would be verifying a body on the slab as the real deal if it was the real deal.  It may not be 99.99999999% but it would be a high number which would get higher in time. The reason for this has to do with the fact each wave of doubters would become progressively smaller and repeated exams reveal the same findings. That is, the body speaks for itself.

 

 

BD

 

 

Live Body     >        Dead Body on a slab       >        Super High quality modern video image     >       PGF.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PG film is good enough for me so far.  I don't really want to see a Bigfoot body on a slab personally.  Some will never accept Bigfoot no matter what anyway, just as there are many who may never accept ET's in their lifetime, and/or never accept that we walked on the moon and/or never accept the spirits, etc. etc.  Que cera cera, whatever will be, will be (and is) regardless of what we think.  So basically, I don't doubt the unknown too much.  

 

It'll be 50 years soon with no replication of the PGf subject to pass the laugh test so, really, what the heck is that thing?  8 p

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter
8 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I respectfully disagree. The film falls far short of a body on a slab than can be documented, examined and retested.

A wonderful  beautiful grainy film, but certainly not proof positive.

 

The film can't classify the subject, but there is enough evidence between it and the evidence on the ground to have ruled out it was a man in a monkey suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right.  The subject is documented (it's on the film); it's been examined (that film is one of history's most hashed-over pieces of evidence).

 

If we have no other conclusions, after fifty years, we won't come to another but the one we have, and that is:  that was no man in a monkey suit.

 

There is only one other thing it could be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they even have stretch fur back then? We're building a suit for our film and let me tell you--it's like $67 a square foot! Not for a middle to low class hoaxer thats for sure. And no I'm not rich by any means but we were fortunate enough to have some great sponsors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber pinned this topic
  • masterbarber unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor locked and pinned this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...