Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch
3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

I don't think Patty is 6'1'' but I don't need Patty to be 9 foot tall.  The skeptics don't want Patty to end up at a height which is 6'5'' or higher as it is getting harder and harder to find a tall guy who is a big guy who can fit in a suit.  

 

 

Its been stated that Roger had a very tall Indian friend who lived in the Yakima area.

 

Additionally, Robert big buck Maffei was 7’1”. He and Roger had a mutual colleague in the way of Jerry Merritt.

3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

Bob H looks like the guy on Saturday Morning Cartoons  Time for Timer.  His walk is nowhere near what Patty does.  There is nothing smooth about it either.

 

hqdefault.jpg
 

 

 

BobH was filmed doing the Pattywalk 30 years after the PGF was filmed.  Can you move about as smoothly as you once did 3 decades ago? I can’t and I’m only 45. Time can take its toll on a body.

 

oh look... a wagon wheel :)

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

I can walk as smoothly at 69.5 years old as I could when I was 19 years old. I have had a life history of sports, martial arts and deep woods backpacking which isn't unusual in itself but for some reason my body has also retained some decent flexibility. Even so walking like Patty does take some effort which has nothing to do with age or flexibility. It has to do with Walking like her for a long period of time in order to maintain the posture, gait, and characteristics of her style of walking.

 

Hieronimus has been caught numerous times lying and changing his story including the construction of the suit it self. Why a skeptic would even consider him a source for the truth for a second is beyond me. I cannot think that any skeptic would be so desperate to falsify Patty as to use Heironimus as the go-to for proof of a hoax. He is quite simply the weakest link in their entire argument.

 

ANY argument for a hoax has failed really and now what happens? Oh Boy, we gat to go all around again to the beginning with Squatchy's posted images. Well, I'm not biting on that one. He could wallpaper the entire inside of his house with those images and it wouldn't prove hoax. The PGF stands and will always stand as the truth of Patty's existence in 1967. So this is no time to backtrack just because a skeptic has posted images that had been refuted a long, long, time ago.

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

^^

"He is quite simply the weakest link in their entire argument."

Two to three years ago I once posted something similar to "If someone has to resort to using Bob Heironimus to try to convince people the PGF is a fake, then they must have very little to begin with."

 

You make a good point about walking like Patty for a long period of time. I've read in at least one summary of an attempt to have someone replicate the Patty walk that said the person could not maintain the same consistent gait beyond a short distance; they soon began to struggle to maintain the gait. And the attempts that have been made, that I'm aware of, were all attempted on a hard floor inside a lab. Plus I think the subjects were all wearing shoes. If a person begins to struggle on a hard floor indoors, in a pair of shoes, imagine how much they would struggle outdoors on actual hard sandy soil, while not wearing shoes. Patty wasn't wearing any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

50 years later and it still hasn’t been debunked... because she was real ... realy is of no concern who developed the film

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

^^ Yep, that just about sums it up, adam2323 :) All of the reasons she is real are far stronger than the reasons she is not. One can argue any detail they wish without success but all of the details put together and the entire argument for her being a hoax simply falls apart. Because even though the details have been successfully argued and shown to be in favor of Patty being real when one adds al the details into one picture the thruth of her existence in 1967 becomes unassailable. Good to hear you wade in here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor
6 hours ago, hiflier said:

I can walk as smoothly at 69.5 years old as I could when I was 19 years old. I have had a life history of sports, martial arts and deep woods backpacking which isn't unusual in itself but for some reason my body has also retained some decent flexibility. Even so walking like Patty does take some effort which has nothing to do with age or flexibility. It has to do with Walking like her for a long period of time in order to maintain the posture, gait, and characteristics of her style of walking.

 

Very well said, hiflier.  I don't know how anyone could consider the PGf carefully and still conclude that they are looking at a person in a Bigfoot costume.  People in masks with a significantly restricted view must look down often when walking on uneven terrain, or they will stumble and most likely fall.  That's just simple physics and Patty does neither of those things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

hiflier wrote:

Quote

^^ Yep, that just about sums it up, adam2323 :) All of the reasons she is real are far stronger than the reasons she is not. One can argue any detail they wish without success but all of the details put together and the entire argument for her being a hoax simply falls apart. Because even though the details have been successfully argued and shown to be in favor of Patty being real when one adds al the details into one picture the thruth of her existence in 1967 becomes unassailable. Good to hear you wade in here.  

 

 

And...here is that entire argument, hiflier… ;) ....in it's entirety.....(a comic that Bill Miller posted, last year)...

 

Bloke_In_ASuit.jpg

 

 

Oh yeah....there is also a picture of Tom Pate..."matching Patty".  Except in his 'arm proportion'.  :bbq: 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

hiflier, your second sentence in your reply to adam says it well. When you have a lot more evidence that points to "real  creature" as compared to evidence that points to "human", what is the logical conclusion that can be drawn?

The term that comes to mind is "weight of the evidence".

Look at all the analysis and other evidence that points to"real creature"; things like the arm length with no extensions, arm proportions, IM Index, foot length, track depth, shoulder width, lack of replication of a suit in 50+ years, lack of full replication of the figure's gait, body build and bulk, non human characteristics in the tracks. I know there's more.

 

How much analysis and evidence do we have that points to Patty being a human in a suit? 

 

Regarding Patty's foot length. We have seen a frame before that shows Patty's toes flexed and pointing somewhat upwards; I know Sweaty has posted it before and I think pointed out the flexing of the toes. Wouldn't the only way to achieve this effect with a human in a fur suit be to have a human whose foot could completely fill the costume foot, including the toes? I'm not sure how else it could be done. I don't see how a human with a shorter foot could accomplish this. If it can be, maybe someone can fill in.

 

Patty's feet were 14.5 inches long and from what I could estimate would convert to about a size 22 shoe. The average shoe size is 9-11.  

What were the odds there was really a person in Yakima, WA in 1967 that wore size 22 shoes and was also acquainted with Roger Patterson and was a master of the bent knee gait. From zero to none?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

What caused them to stop tracking Patty?

 

After the event took place, Gimlin road forward a bit to try to "see the thing again".  Roger called him back. It was Gimlin's impression Roger did not want to be left there in case other Patty's showed up.  Who knows?  

Gimlin does point out Roger wanted to get under his poncho and change the film right away.  

 

Roger was probably sure he got something but he knew he ran out of film in a matter of seconds.  Roger wanted to change the film so they could get more footage should they see Patty again.  This makes sense.   Here is the part I wonder about:

 

They we are at a crossroads.  At some point Roger and Bob track patty for bit which I would assume might be 30 min (?). At some point they made the decision to give up and go to plan B:  the plaster casting and the stomp test to name a few things on Reel #2.  Is what is known about Reel #2 so short because Roger left a large chunk of film in the camera should they see Patty again?

 

It also makes sense they wanted to go back and camp and hang around longer (which I assume is with about 50% of Reel #2 remaining) to try to see her again.  They report the weather drove them out.  

 

What was the thinking that lead them to give up on Patty and go to Plan B?  We know they were there to film tracks anyway so they had a value to filmed tracks and plaster footprints.    I can understand they wanted to preserve the encounter as it just happened.

 

I think it is impressive Roger changed the film ASAP.  I am not sure if this happened at the PGF sight or he had to go back to camp to do this under the poncho with the daylight film.  This tells me Roger wanted to be armed with more film to be prepared should they see another one.  I am also impressed they understood the value of just seeing tracks (esp fresh ones) and they were able to film and take plaster prints.  Had they been 5 min. later that might be all they had since Patty may have been gone by then.

 

It would just seem once they decided to abandon the hunt for Patty after the encounter it was basically agreeing they understood they were not going to see her again without calling in the reinforcements.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Even on horses they likely judged that Patty was moving too fast to catch so went back to the sighting location.        Most people that have encounters mention how incredibly fast the BF move away.      Horses in the open are fast but not in trailess woods.  Once I encountered a rider that was having difficulty getting his horse to move along a trail.    Something was spooking it.     I have never asked Bob how his horse reacted to Patty.     A woman rider I know has mentioned that she thinks BF spook her horse.    The horse barely reacts to bears and even cougars but something in the Washington woods spooks her horse to the point where she has been afraid it might throw her off.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

^^^

1-  Thanks SWWASAS your explaining this puts the situation in perspective.  

 

 

2-  If they changed the film at the PGF encounter site to me that goes a long way into the idea they were going to try to track/ film it again.  If they had the poncho back at the camp site and changed the daylight reel there, I think that pointed to the idea they gave up as that ship had sailed.  If the poncho was on the horse they still needed to take time to round up the horse in order to change the film at the PGF site.  This took time so even if they wanted to go after Patty time ticked by.

 

3- Do we know when they changed to reel #2   Camp site or right after the event at the film site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

From Bob Gimlin's interview with John Green:

 

"We went to catch his horse and the pack horse because I kept my horse under control. I had my horse with me all the time. So we caught his horse, got the new film out of the saddle bags, he got under his old poncho and changed the film around. Then we tried to track the creature on up from where we had last seen it. We didn't have much luck doing it. Then we decided it was getting late in the afternoon."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
6 hours ago, Backdoc said:

What caused them to stop tracking Patty?

 

After the event took place, Gimlin road forward a bit to try to "see the thing again".  Roger called him back. It was Gimlin's impression Roger did not want to be left there in case other Patty's showed up

 

Bob Gimlin had the gun. Was it the only gun? If so then Roger may have not wanted to be left behind unarmed? If no one knows whether or not there was more than one gun it would be a good question to ask Bob Gimlin. In fact, there have been a few things that I have read on this thread and elsewhere that I think would be good to ask him as well. He's getting on in years as we all are so the sooner the better?

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

hiflier, Bob G. told John Green that Roger had a .303 British rifle in his saddle scabbard.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Thanks, OkieFoot :) 

Share this post


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

×