Jump to content
norseman

Pgf Recreation Proposal

Recommended Posts

norseman

Where does Patty take 81.5" strides? Not here...

Bigpattylockknee.jpg

Definitely not here...

Until we know without a doubt what the height of the film subject is? Making all of these computer measurements is a kin to throwing darts at a wall. Same goes for taking two blurry photos that may or may not be the same scale and start making comparisons side by side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Where does Patty take 81.5" strides? Not here...

Bigpattylockknee.jpg

Kit, do you know what an 81.5" stride looks like from behind? Snap a photo of yourself and check it out.

Definitely not here...

Come to think of it, I have issues with this trackway even being from the subject film (PGF).

This model matches-up fairly well with the film subject, 36 inches from heel to toe. So why is the trackway below only 20 inches give or take, from heel to toe??? When was it doing the two-step???

Anyone????

m

http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21845

Don't you realize that mangler matched up a 36" heel to toe poser against 1 of Patty's steps? So what step length is that (toe to toe)?

And the trackway photo mangler refers to is highly distorted (as is the LeClerc composite). How about this composite?

stride.jpg

And what is your problem with the 2 frame animated GIF showing the foot articulating at the ankle? Not the overexposed achilles, I hope. What you should be wondering is where the folds are as well as the separation between the pants and the feet. The Morris feet were separate from the pants right? So what gives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I think I can nail two birds with one stone here in terms of getting some conversations back on track. The following is a redirect from the thread on Patty's mouth moving and is a discussion initiated by primarily Tontar regarding his interest in collaborating efforts to do a Patty recreation attempt, which is exactly what this thread started out as (though got into some stride physics)...

So what would happen if 10 guys got together to invest in a suit? Or 20 guys? I'm sure there's more than enough people out there willing to invest in an easily affordable venture like that. You just need to find that many people who are sure it can be done. As far as I can see, most people have their doubts.

To conclude that there's no way to recoup is wrong- unless you have doubts that it could be pulled off or meet that level of quality. There are a lot of people out there that would buy an exact replication of Patty.

You may be right about that. It may be true that nobody is certain enough it could be done to invest anything in. Or, conversely, they mat question the ability of the people that have made claims that they could do it. Nobody knows me from Adam, for example. I haven't worked in the makeup industry, so I don't have those credentials. But while not a cowboy, I think I probably have a lot in common with Patterson, having experience in quite a few different fields, fabrication, sail design, art, and so on. So I think that it would be a reasonably fair comparison, a non-Hollywood, non-makeup specialist, working with basic materials and a limited budget, producing something good enough to be convincing enough in its limited exposure.

But I am still debating whether to do it or not. I'm confident about it, I have some materials already, I just don't want to spend a lot of money on a suit when I could spend it on a new camera, for example. :-) Or shoes! :-) But maybe I will end up doing it more gradually just to get it done, but on a much more limited budget than I have suggested here, using surplus materials or things I can get for pennies. Not ideal, but challenging enough that I might just go for it on the super cheap...

I appreciate you being cool about the subject, BTW.

Tontar has some bread and some materials gathered for such a collaborative effort. I encourage Tontar with this and everyone else thus far who expressed interest. Hopefully putting this idea back on the table may be able to drum up some interest in one simple notion...

The Bigfoot community wants to see a realistic attempt at recreating Patty - the Bigfoot community makes this happen for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tontar

I think I can nail two birds with one stone here in terms of getting some conversations back on track. The following is a redirect from the thread on Patty's mouth moving and is a discussion initiated by primarily Tontar regarding his interest in collaborating efforts to do a Patty recreation attempt, which is exactly what this thread started out as (though got into some stride physics)...

Tontar has some bread and some materials gathered for such a collaborative effort. I encourage Tontar with this and everyone else thus far who expressed interest. Hopefully putting this idea back on the table may be able to drum up some interest in one simple notion...

The Bigfoot community wants to see a realistic attempt at recreating Patty - the Bigfoot community makes this happen for themselves.

I think a big hurdle is that only some of the bigfoot community wants to see a realistic attempt. The other part of he community wants to see a failed attempt at recreating Patty. It'd be fun, and good, to see the fruits of at least two kinds of efforts. Those who believe without a doubt Patty is real should take on a recreation project, and those who believe without a doubt that a Patty copy could be made convincingly should take on a recreation project. Sounds like there have been some efforts in the past, perhaps still ongoing and not yet revealed, to make a convincing Patty clone. I don't know where those efforts went, or where they are right now, but I don't mind throwing my hat in the ring as well. My assumption would be that Patty is a person in a suit, for the purposes of the project, so that my mindset would be 100% aimed at success. If Roger could do it, I could do it. I think I can probably sew as good as he could. Can probably carve foam as well as he could. Work with latex rubber as well as he could.

So, in this thread, are there actually people wanting to do a Patty recreation? Or just talk about a Patty recreation? Or talk smack about a Patty recreation? I am not sure what the temperature is like in here, although seeing some familiar faces I can probably guess. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Tontar:

I'm sure many people would like to see a responsible attempt to recreate Patty and the PGF. The challenge, as I see it, is trying to get as many variables consistent with what we know of the film so any resulting recreation can be compared in a responsible way.

One is making sure all materials used were types available in 1967.

Another is making sure the sunlight angle is the same as the PGF.

third would be the subject walking a similar full course of about 350 feet, the path the camera records.

Forth would be using a 16mm camera, not a video camera (although a video camera could be used as well as a second analysis footage source).

Fifth would be trying to get a similar level of image detail on film, subject size to film grain and resolution.

Sixth would be scanning the 16mm film frames for analysis the same way we scan the known PGF footage.

To neglect any of these variables would open up the effort to claims that it's not a proper recreation and thus the results are useless for comparison.

So I simply offer the above advice to you and anyone else interested, in the hopes that any such effort is actually useful to us in trying to get to the truth of this intriguing filmed mystery.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest StankApe

Can you even get 16mm film anymore? (aside from buying hoarded NOS from collectors?). It seems to me that in this day and age of cheap digital cameras, finding the stock and paying for the lab work might exceed the suit costs!

I wonder , if you can get an app for a digital camera that recreates the grain and look of a 16mm camera? hmmm, something to consider looking into anyway...

Edited to add the below information

Well, I just went and looked it up at this site : http://www.matthewwagenknecht.com/the-actual-costs-of-film/

This guy says you can buy 16mm film for about $100 per 400 foot roll from a reseller or ($145 from kodak) and then pay between 12-16 cents a foot for lab work.

So thats 400 feet X (lets avg it at 14 cents a foot) $56.00 in lab fees. so I reckon the total costs to be between $160-$200 for the footage costs not including the suit and camera (but you might be able to find someone who has a 16mm camera they would either loan you, or you could have them do the filming).

BTW, to have it bumped to digital or tape for editing purposes apparently costs similarly to the development costs. so i you wanted to post in on Youtube, you are looking at another $60 or so.

Edited by StankApe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kit,

I think i would be fun to see an attempt from people who are probably more aware of the details and issues than what we have seen before on TV and Youtube. (always thought it was funny that the "American Paranormal" show used a 7ft tall actor to try and duplicate the gait)

But...Fun is all it would be.

If the effort ended up as a complete failure, it would only mean that group failed...not that the task is impossible. If the group "nails it", there are still those who wouldn't agree or say "just because you can make a suit, doesn't mean it is a suit".

The other problem would be establishing the parameters of the suit. 7ft tall, BH size? or possibly Roger size? (see the "Roger as Patty" thread). and on and on. Maybe we should have 3 groups?

Anyway, if this ever takes off...I'm in for a little $$ and a little input.

C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tontar

Can you even get 16mm film anymore? (aside from buying hoarded NOS from collectors?). It seems to me that in this day and age of cheap digital cameras, finding the stock and paying for the lab work might exceed the suit costs!

I wonder , if you can get an app for a digital camera that recreates the grain and look of a 16mm camera? hmmm, something to consider looking into anyway...

Edited to add the below information

Well, I just went and looked it up at this site : http://www.matthewwagenknecht.com/the-actual-costs-of-film/

This guy says you can buy 16mm film for about $100 per 400 foot roll from a reseller or ($145 from kodak) and then pay between 12-16 cents a foot for lab work.

So thats 400 feet X (lets avg it at 14 cents a foot) $56.00 in lab fees. so I reckon the total costs to be between $160-$200 for the footage costs not including the suit and camera (but you might be able to find someone who has a 16mm camera they would either loan you, or you could have them do the filming).

BTW, to have it bumped to digital or tape for editing purposes apparently costs similarly to the development costs. so i you wanted to post in on Youtube, you are looking at another $60 or so.

I have a Kodak K-100 camera. Got it on ebay quite a while back. Bill has one also.

I understand the comparison thing, being as accurate as possible. One step at a time, or even, whatever steps can be made should be made, rather than waiting to get every duck in order. The film is one part, agreed, and a very important part considering the grain, he detail the features that may or may not be able to be seen and all that. But the bottom line is that a decent suit needs to be made, regardless of the capture medium. Film would be the best to compare apples to apples, but for some things video could work as a practical alternative. If the film is going to be a big hassle, no reason to bag a project over that.

Kit,

I think i would be fun to see an attempt from people who are probably more aware of the details and issues than what we have seen before on TV and Youtube. (always thought it was funny that the "American Paranormal" show used a 7ft tall actor to try and duplicate the gait)

But...Fun is all it would be.

If the effort ended up as a complete failure, it would only mean that group failed...not that the task is impossible. If the group "nails it", there are still those who wouldn't agree or say "just because you can make a suit, doesn't mean it is a suit".

The other problem would be establishing the parameters of the suit. 7ft tall, BH size? or possibly Roger size? (see the "Roger as Patty" thread). and on and on. Maybe we should have 3 groups?

Anyway, if this ever takes off...I'm in for a little $$ and a little input.

C.

So the question is, once an appropriate representative is done, how should it be presented? In a different thread, it was noted that if it were presented as a reproduction, it would be met with immediate criticism and not pass the test. And that the only way to realistically present it for objective appraisal would be to present it as an authentic sighting, basically lying and fooling people. Creating a hoax, in other words. There's something unethical about that, but how else would one go about getting a truly honest, objective "taste test" without being somewhat dishonest in the presentation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest StankApe

Tontar,

Yeah that was I who suggested that by the nature of the way our brains work, it would be impossible to say "Hey look, it's the suit I promised!" and have anyone (skeptics included) buy into it completely. When we know something is fake, well we know it's fake! LOL, and it becomes very difficult for us to buy into the quality of it and/or how accurate it is.

But, the alternative is to hoax the board... and the only way to do that is to make a sock puppet and hoax the board (cuz if you, I , Kit...etc put up a video they will know what it is, and that kinda cancels out the needed effect of convincing people it's real and therefor proving that it IS possible to make a suit that is convincing....

However, I have come up with the idea of just using You Tube to your advantage. You make the film, bump it to digital, create a new email addy and then a new You Tube account.Someone would stumble upon it eventually and there you'd have you results! (not to mention it would be pretty fun ,I imagine, sitting here and reading all the opinions and discussions about whether or not it's real!).

IMO, my above idea is the only way to do it without being kinda unethical and rotten to the boards but to get a result that was as unbiased as is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Just try to make a suit that looks as realistic as Patty, that's it. Don't worry that you can't make it to Bluff Creek, can't a get a 16 mm camera and film, can't get the correct time-of-day, time-of-year, sunlight, film grain, angle, distance, size, etc. etc. etc. All of that being in place at once will almost surely never, ever happen.

Just make a suit that realistic, heck, it doesn't have to look exactly like Patty (it never will anyway) in order to convince a lot of the current believers that it could be done. I think that almost everyone (not here but, in general) severely underestimates what their up against in regard to that alleged suit that never happens. Most believers don't need to try because we already know that it can't be done so, let more of the detractors (some of which have already tried and failed miserably) give it a shot. Good luck! :popcorn:

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest StankApe

I suspect that many of the suits that you say have failed, would have looked much better from a further distance shot with that film stock tho.... All of these points are important. (cuz who is to say that the actual Patty suit wouldn't have looked awful on video?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tontar

I suspect that many of the suits that you say have failed, would have looked much better from a further distance shot with that film stock tho.... All of these points are important. (cuz who is to say that the actual Patty suit wouldn't have looked awful on video?).

I was thinking that if Patty was a suit, and if it materialized after all these years, what miserable shape it would be in. Seeing some of the costumes from old movies, having been stored for decades, I'm always surprised at how quickly things can deteriorate, or how poorly they actually look in real life. I recall how cool the flying monkeys looked in The Wizard of Oz film, but how bad they looked in still, promotional, or behind the scenes shots.

I agree, I think film enhances the look of things, where video tends to make things less attractive, clarifying flaws. This is really evident even with people. Films of people look better than videos of people. Video is harsh, and too "clear". It would be my preference as well to use film, but that's putting the cart before the horse for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest StankApe

Tontar-

Yup, what's made digital video usable in commercial film making? The fact that they have made it look fairly close to film. Not to mention that older,lower qualities of film methods (8mm, 16mm..etc) tend to hide a lot of problems due to the grain, especially at over 20 or 30 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

One thing about the PGF is that We get a pretty good look at the Creature. There is a common misconception that 16mm film is low-resolution which is simply not true. One could take, for instance, the Blevins costume or the Cow Camp costume and make a moving picture of it with whatever camera/resolution/lighting/distance/angle, etc. etc. in the world and that would not make it appear any more realistic, it would only get worse. The idea that: the 16mm film, Roger shaking the camera, the distance from the subject, the lighting, etc. etc. are what makes Patty look realistic is just hog-wash, plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest StankApe

Resolution comes into play when you blow the footage up though. As has been pointed out many times, there are tons and tons of artifacts on the blown up footage that makes lots of things appear to move that aren't really moving. (and I'm not talking about anything havin to do with Patty herself, but background things ,twigs...etc) It's not like blowing up hi-def video or anything (though that can tend to pixellate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...