Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

Backdoc
BFF Donor

1-  oops I posted my last post on the wrong thread.

 

2- OK,

Thanks for the input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

^^

The last part of my previous post should have been in the "Patty's Walking Style" thread also so l probably should add it since it is related to her walking style. I keep forgetting about that thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
24 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

^^

The last part of my previous post should have been in the "Patty's Walking Style" thread also so l probably should add it since it is related to her walking style. I keep forgetting about that thread.

 

 

I just went there.  Please do so we can build upon the point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
On 8/29/2018 at 1:12 PM, Backdoc said:

Patty walks a certain distance over time. 

 

She does this smoothly. 

 

If a person cannot walk that distance in that amount of time,  it is not a man in a suit.  

 

If a person can then we need to know if a suited human can.

 

This logic is the same as testing the Memorial Day footage with an Olympic level sprinter.  In that case the sprinter could cover the distance as the filmed figure.  If it has turned out one of the fastest people on the planet could not best the figure on that film it would conclude a hoax would be nearly impossible in that case.

 

 

However taking a mask off at the end of the video certainly proves the Memorial day footage is a hoax 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

Reply to Backdoc: That is exactly what René Dahinden did in one of his many experiments on the filmsite. He experimented with people covering the same distance as Patty and he determined that a person at top walking speed could not cover the same amount of distance as Patty. Good point!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

P-G, is there a longer video that shows the figure taking off a mask? I've never read that before about the Memorial Day footage. The videos I've seen show the figure walking into the woods and then disappearing from view.

 

A sidenote about the Memorial Day footage:

Something I've never understood: In determining if a human could cover the same distance as the figure in the same or less amount of time, why did they use an athlete that was several inches taller then the figure in the footage. The "Bigfoot" in the footage was said to be about 5' 3. 

It seems to me they should have used a 5' 3 human to get a better comparison of speeds between the two; the taller athlete had a much longer stride length and was an AA sprinter. Not saying it would have really changed things but it seems like more equal heights would be a more valid comparison. One reason I can think of as to why they didn't is the number of 5' 3 adult males has to be very small; they would have to have got a kid in his very early teens, maybe 13-14, to have a subject the same height as the figure.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
37 minutes ago, Daniel Perez said:

Reply to Backdoc: That is exactly what René Dahinden did in one of his many experiments on the filmsite. He experimented with people covering the same distance as Patty and he determined that a person at top walking speed could not cover the same amount of distance as Patty. Good point!

 

Sounds good.  I would prefer to have this repeated in something like the Stanford Walking Experiment.   This way we could have a variety of experts look at the issue. It would be done in a well-credentialed place.  It would done by a group of independents.  Finally the principal is one of the most simple and objective that could be tested.  It's a foot race.  Either you can run the mile in 4 min or you can't.   This is the same thing.  A modern take of this test under the right circumstances would settle this issue for most of us IF it turned out a man cannot cover the same distance in the same time how Patty did/does.

 

Q for Daniel Perez:

 

I noticed on a YouTube Video where you, Munns (eating a candy bar), and others go to and find the Bluff Creek site.  There is a video of you taking an older (k100?) type film of Bobo.  Can you tell me what were the results of that film?  What were you testing and what was the result.  To me the film would tell us the detail you could see on Bobo so the detail you could see on Patty could be compared.  Thanks.  Here is the video:

 

 

The point I am talking about occurs at 8:50

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, Daniel Perez said:

Reply to Backdoc: That is exactly what René Dahinden did in one of his many experiments on the filmsite. He experimented with people covering the same distance as Patty and he determined that a person at top walking speed could not cover the same amount of distance as Patty. Good point!

 

 

The experiment that Rene tried was flawed, Daniel...because he didn't account for the time that elapsed while Roger had the camera stopped.....(which happened  about 5 times).

 

The film runs for about a minute....but Patty's walk took longer than one minute. She wasn't walking at a fast pace....so, there is no reason to think that a person couldn't have walked that distance in the same amount of time as Patty.

 

 

5 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

P-G, is there a longer video that shows the figure taking off a mask? I've never read that before about the Memorial Day footage. The videos I've seen show the figure walking into the woods and then disappearing from view.

 

 

The segment near the end of the Memorial Day Video, which some skeptics claim shows the subject "taking off the mask".....does not show any such thing, Okie. 

 

At the very long distance from the camera that the subject was....a thin mask would barely even show-up on a video, if it all.  The size of the 'lifted object' is more consistent with a small individual....a youngster. 

 

I spent a lot of time analyzing the MDF images, before I turned my attention to the Patterson Film....and I am 100% certain that the lifted object was something of considerable size.....and, not a mask.  

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

^^

Sweaty, if I understand correctly, the taking off of a mask is supposedly seen in the last part of the footage where the figure emerges from a bit of a dip, and then suddenly gets "taller", and walks towards the woods and disappears from view? If this is correct, the reason I asked to clarify is I've seen the footage several times, and I have also watched an analysis where someone enlarged the video somewhat and I never got the idea it was taking off a mask. Even with the lack of clarity in the video the person analyzed, the object lifted up onto the shoulders of the figure is consistent with a small child/infant. And I agree, it also appears too big to be a mask.

 

The object stays above the head as it walks into the woods, which to me would rule out a mask since no one is going to take off a mask and then continue to hold the mask above their head while they walk on towards and then into the woods. If they're taking off a mask, you'd think they would just hold the mask in their hands down by their sides.

 

The person also noted the athlete swings his arms as he runs but the figure, in the middle part of the run, does not swing it's arms; it keeps them close to it's body. The analyzer thinks maybe it was holding an infant to it's back since it appeared something was on it's back, and later the object on it's back appears to lift itself up onto the figure's shoulders after the figure is starting to come back into view from the dip in the ground. And because the shape appeared consistent with a small child/infant.  

 

Some have speculated the object could have been a backpack. This is why I've said before "When you think it through". If this Memorial Day footage was a hoax being played by someone, "Why would someone have their Bigfoot actor wear a backpack while they're running and being filmed by unsuspecting campers? :wacko: 

Even for a hoax film, this makes no sense. They may as well have first filmed a clapperboard with "Memorial Day Bigfoot Hoax, Take 1". 

Even though the subject isn't very large in the film, did they think no one would analyze the film and maybe detect it.? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Okiefoot wrote:

Quote

^^

Sweaty, if I understand correctly, the taking off of a mask is supposedly seen in the last part of the footage where the figure emerges from a bit of a dip, and then suddenly gets "taller", and walks towards the woods and disappears from view? If this is correct, the reason I asked to clarify is I've seen the footage several times, and I have also watched an analysis where someone enlarged the video somewhat and I never got the idea it was taking off a mask. Even with the lack of clarity in the video the person analyzed, the object lifted up onto the shoulders of the figure is consistent with a small child/infant.

And I agree, it also appears too big to be a mask.

 

 

Yes, Okie...that is correct.  :) 

 

I'm glad to hear that you never got the impression it was a mask....apparently, you're not a scoftic. ;)  

 

The "mask" explanation is nothing more than wishful thinking, on the part of scoffers....who are looking for mundane explanations for any and all bits of evidence which suggest the existence of Bigfoot.....(and their off-spring). 

 

 

Quote

The person also noted the athlete swings his arms as he runs but the figure, in the middle part of the run, does not swing it's arms; it keeps them close to it's body. The analyzer thinks maybe it was holding an infant to it's back since it appeared something was on it's back, and later the object on it's back appears to lift itself up onto the figure's shoulders after the figure is starting to come back into view from the dip in the ground. And because the shape appeared consistent with a small child/infant.  

 

 

The 'main subject' in the video does swing one of it's arms as it is running.....but, oddly....(under the 'hoax' scenario)….doesn't swing the other arm.

But, considering that there is something flopping around on the main subject's back....one scenario which would make some sense is that it is the 'young one'...(which is later lifted-up onto the main subject's shoulders)...being held onto by one of the main subject's arms.

 

 

Quote

 

Some have speculated the object could have been a backpack. This is why I've said before "When you think it through". If this Memorial Day footage was a hoax being played by someone, "Why would someone have their Bigfoot actor wear a backpack while they're running and being filmed by unsuspecting campers? :wacko: 

Even for a hoax film, this makes no sense. They may as well have first filmed a clapperboard with "Memorial Day Bigfoot Hoax, Take 1". 

Even though the subject isn't very large in the film, did they think no one would analyze the film and maybe detect it.? 

 

 

A backpack makes no sense, either.  Especially considering the fact that, before the footage was shot....Owen Pate came back down to the campsite, and told Lori that he had just seen a Sasquatch at fairly close range....up on the hillside.  That was the reason why Lori got the camcorder out, and got ready to shoot some footage.

 

Owen's sighting claim could certainly make one suspect that this footage was a hoax executed by the Pate's...but, one thing that speaks strongly against that explanation/scenario.....is a lengthy email I had received from Lori's father.....several years ago.....in which he talked about their encounter, that day. So, if this was a hoax executed by the Pates....did they also decide to hoax Lori's father.....or was he "in on the hoax", also???  :wacko:  

Neither of those two scenarios make any sense. 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

^^

SY, this is an analysis I've seen. He talks about all the things you mentioned. In the earlier part you can see there is something on the figure's back, even with the blurriness. And surmises one arm doesn't because it's using the arm to help hold the infant on the back. From the 7:28 to 7:37 mark you can see the head and shoulders of the figure as it comes into view from the dip, and then you see an object move up above the figures head and the object appears consistent with a small child sitting up on the shoulders. Before the 7:28 mark, there appears to be something in a lighter shade on the upper back of the figure and this lighter shaded object is what moves up and appears to lift itself up onto the shoulders and above the head.

He also says the figure trying to run while carrying an infant and using one arm to help the infant hang on to it's back is why the figure didn't run real fast. 

I agree, the idea that the Pates pulled a hoax but didn't include the wife's father doesn't make sense. It's like the idea that Roger pulled a hoax but didn't include Bob Gimlin. For it to all be true, it means too many far fetched assumptions. 

 

This is the analysis:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

Sweaty,

There is something I forgot to add in the earlier post.

If we look at a hoax scenario of someone lifting off a mask, it brings up two very obvious questions:

If the person was wearing a mask and lifted it off only at the end, then why didn't the figure swing both arms as it ran, instead of just one arm? Or do people skeptical of the footage believe the figure wore a mask and also had something on it's back that caused the figure to keep one arm in to hold it on.

 

Another question is: Why would the person lift off the mask while they were still in plain sight? That defies common sense. They were still visible and were still being filmed at that point. So why didn't they just do another take? This would indicate if it was a hoax, the Pates were not part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Okiefoot wrote:

Quote

SY, this is an analysis I've seen. He talks about all the things you mentioned. In the earlier part you can see there is something on the figure's back, even with the blurriness. And surmises one arm doesn't because it's using the arm to help hold the infant on the back. From the 7:28 to 7:37 mark you can see the head and shoulders of the figure as it comes into view from the dip, and then you see an object move up above the figures head and the object appears consistent with a small child sitting up on the shoulders. Before the 7:28 mark, there appears to be something in a lighter shade on the upper back of the figure and this lighter shaded object is what moves up and appears to lift itself up onto the shoulders and above the head.

He also says the figure trying to run while carrying an infant and using one arm to help the infant hang on to it's back is why the figure didn't run real fast. 

 

This is the analysis:

 

Thanks for posting the video, Okie.  :) 

 

He and I agree on most of the details. One minor detail that I "see" differently, is how the infant gets up onto the main subject's shoulders....I think the adult places it onto it's shoulders.....as opposed to the infant climbing-up the adult's back. 

 

Btw, I have a dvd that has the entire video on it...including a few minutes of Lori panning the camera around, after the subject went behind the trees. The dvd also includes the audio track. An on-line friend made me a copy of her dvd….I don't think it is commercially available.

 

Also, the video that I have is of higher quality than what is seen in the video you posted. 

 

 

Quote

I agree, the idea that the Pates pulled a hoax but didn't include the wife's father doesn't make sense. It's like the idea that Roger pulled a hoax but didn't include Bob Gimlin. For it to all be true, it means too many far fetched assumptions. 

 

That's true, Okie. ;) 

 

The way that I have looked at the analysis of this video....(from years ago)…..was that in addition to the physical analysis of the visible details in the video...(which are pretty limited)….a secondary method of analysis, which can carry significant weight...is the use of 'logical reasoning'.

 

Simple logical reasoning can narrow-down the possibilities of what is seen in this video. As just one example....Lori's father supporting the video as being legit, in an email to a stranger (myself), years after the video was shot. His actions tell us that it is unlikely that the video was a hoax perpetrated by Owen and Lori Pate.

And that deduction, in turn, means that Owen's sighting testimony carries a significant amount of weight....(if he was not executing a hoax...then he was most likely being honest, in his sighting report). 

 

Okiefoot wrote:

Quote

Sweaty,

There is something I forgot to add in the earlier post.

If we look at a hoax scenario of someone lifting off a mask, it brings up two very obvious questions:

If the person was wearing a mask and lifted it off only at the end, then why didn't the figure swing both arms as it ran, instead of just one arm? Or do people skeptical of the footage believe the figure wore a mask and also had something on it's back that caused the figure to keep one arm in to hold it on.

 

Another question is: Why would the person lift off the mask while they were still in plain sight? That defies common sense. They were still visible and were still being filmed at that point. So why didn't they just do another take? This would indicate if it was a hoax, the Pates were not part of it.

 

 

The "mask" theory is really not even worth discussing/analyzing, Okie....since it is quite clear that the lifted object is too large to have been a mask. That simple detail 'finishes off' the mask proposal... :bbq:    

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

This is  why the creature is not taking seriously by scientists . Memorial day footage is blurry,It is really nothing to even consider . Nothing at all. Yet some of you see the creature with child no less. Astonishing.  The Patterson film remains the best footage ever. 

 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
10 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

This is  why the creature is not taking seriously by scientists . Memorial day footage is blurry,It is really nothing to even consider . Nothing at all. Yet some of you see the creature with child no less. Astonishing.  The Patterson film remains the best footage ever. 

 

 

Sorry I took this thread down the wrong path here. I mention the MDF only as an example of testing a principle. That is, if a man cannot run faster than the MDF subject it must be a non man.  As it turns out a man could do so fairly easily (at least an rare Olympic level runner could).   This means a man could run as fast as the MDF subject. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

I am not impressed with the MDF footage and I just feel on limited glance it is a man or teen in a ape suit running across a field.  I can't explain the part at the end but that is not what concerns me. It is everything that leads up to that which already feels fake to me before I even have to go there on explaining the end.  Now I could be wrong and that is fine. I have not spent more than a few passing glances at this thing so I will admit it just doesn't do it for me. 

 

We have to take the footages as they come in. This MDF has been considered by many and apparently there are those very impressed by it. I could be wrong but I am just not one of them.

 

The PGF is a masterpiece of either one of the greatest hoaxes of all time or one of the most important zoological films of all time.  I have to admit that has been my focus.  Sorry to all of those MDF fans I am just too lazy to look further because of my initial impressions.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×