Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

SWWASAS

I have not seen it in any other threads but Todd Standings case got ruled on this week.   The judge found in favor of BC.     Judge said nothing in the law requires BC to investigate existence of anything.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Thanks for clarifying BD. The footage is garbage. Only the close minded like certain individuals who blocks everyone who does not accept undocumented  unproven mythical creatures thinks the footage shows anything of significance. 

In my opinion this hurts their case. 

They should really stick to their only tangible evidence. The wonderful Patterson film. Nothing else holds up to scrutiny. Until we have a body to dissect 

There is nothing else to consider. 

 

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Regardless of what anyone's opinion is of the footage, try taking a close look at the still shot at these four time markers on the video posted earlier: 7:05, 7:08, 7:21 and 7:37. Since they are shots on a computer screen I think they would have been too big to put on here. I originally tried but I couldn't get them to fit. 

 

There is blurriness but you can make things out. Here's what I am seeing:

7:05 - The figure is just emerging from the dip in the ground. You can see it's head and something in a lighter shade on it's upper back.

7:08 - This is a couple of steps later. You can see the figure's head and now part of it's back. You can see the lighter shaded object appears to have moved up just a little and on its lower right side you can see something that is slender with a bit of length. 

7:21 - This is another step or two later. The blurriness makes it look strange but on the upper right side you see a profile of the front part of the figure's face. The lighter shaded object has moved up higher on the shoulders, and appears to have turned and now has it's back to the camera. 

The lighter shaded object is clearly not a mask; a mask would be on the head from start to finish. Plus a mask is going to be the same color as the costume, not a different shade. No one has ever reported seeing a Bigfoot with a head a different shade than the rest of the figure. 

7:37 - Only a few steps further. The lighter shaded object has clearly changed position and now appears to be sitting on the shoulders in an upright position. The head of the figure is obscured by the lighter shaded object; all you can see of the figure is part of it's back.

 

That is what I see in these shots. If there is another explanation for what this lighter shaded object is and why it moves from being on the figure's upper back/shoulder area and ends up on top of the figure's shoulders in an upright position, all in a space of about 8-10 steps, please post it. These movements would point to it not being an inanimate object.

Share this post


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

 

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

 

...if that’s what explains it.  I am not sure what that is at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

As I recall it was a cell phone video.     Any researcher packing a cell phone for their camera is not going to get anything better.   I can think of a half dozen such cell phone pictures or videos that it were taken with a good camera, would give us a lot more to discuss than the P/G film.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I think you are correct. Crummy cell phone footage is certainly not ideal. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
16 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

As I recall it was a cell phone video.     Any researcher packing a cell phone for their camera is not going to get anything better.   I can think of a half dozen such cell phone pictures or videos that it were taken with a good camera, would give us a lot more to discuss than the P/G film.   

 

A cell phone video? In 1996?

 

You recall incorrectly.

 

MDF was filmed on a hi 8mm video camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

OLDMORT,

 

A while back you seemed to be close on some new info on other developing location or possibilities.  Any news there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Hi Backdoc! I have been taking some time away from the forum and just started posting again recently.

 

I thought it might be a good idea to refresh my memory on the timeline and development issue,

 

so I read both threads in their entirety (4 days). There's a lot of good stuff there!

 

Any hope of finding out any new info died when Frank Ishihara passed away.

 

I had hoped to talk to him...

 

I am of the opinion now that we pretty much have all the available information.

 

If the original can ever be recovered and examined, I still think the processing facility can be identified.

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
5 hours ago, OldMort said:

Hi Backdoc! I have been taking some time away from the forum and just started posting again recently.

 

I thought it might be a good idea to refresh my memory on the timeline and development issue,

 

so I read both threads in their entirety (4 days). There's a lot of good stuff there!

 

Any hope of finding out any new info died when Frank Ishihara passed away.

 

I had hoped to talk to him...

 

I am of the opinion now that we pretty much have all the available information.

 

If the original can ever be recovered and examined, I still think the processing facility can be identified.

 

 

 

Well, we have all benefited because this thread was started.   Important issue.   Thanks for trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutPools
On 9/7/2018 at 6:54 AM, OkieFoot said:

^^

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:

 

 

Why would anyone speculate that that is a Sasquatch? LOL

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
12 hours ago, ThinkAboutPools said:

 

 

Why would anyone speculate that that is a Sasquatch? LOL

 

I am not impressed by it.

 

Would you be open though to the results of the testing?  The TV producers got an Olympic sprinter in scientific tracking gear to run as fast as he could that same path.  The result was a man (at least a man in that kind of physical shape) could easily run faster than the subject in the memorial day footage.  yet, consider this:  In spite of how bad of a bigfoot hoax attempt you might think it to be, had the sprinter failed to run as fast as the subject on the film, it could only mean it was something real.  That is, something non  human as a human couldn't best it in a race.

 

We need to consider things as they come to us.  when they do we need to weigh them the best we can with the best we have available to us.  Better yet, doing this based on objective testing (such as the runner vs subject) and not just rely on our guy feeling.

 

I have made my feeling clear.  I am not impressed with it esp after it was tested.  That still does not make it a hoax.  (For me, I think it is).  Had the runner ran slower, it proves it could not be a hoax.  Doesn't explain what it is, but it makes certain what it cannot be.

 

BTW  WELCOME to the BFF Thinkaboutpools.

 

(final thought:  It is still possible it could be something nonhuman which happens to run at a pace that just happens to be slower than the sprinter. I mean. If I run that same path I would be slower than the test runner and still end up being something real after all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

I thought I would mention this, even though it doesn't really mean much one way or the other. In "Cracking the Bigfoot Code", Thinker Thunker measures the body proportions of the figure in the Memorial Day footage; the same way he measured Patty, Bob H. and other humans.

The figure measured 7%, which is non-human range; humans measured 20%. By comparison, Patty measured 5%. 

From the standpoint of a hoax: It should be noted the footage was made in 1996 when technology was more advanced than in 1967 and since the figure's body proportions are very close to Pattys, (per Thinker Thunker)", did the hoaxers (the Pates) and /or suitmaker utilize arm extensions? And who was the suitmaker?

I'm guessing it would probably take someone that could more closely examine the arms and hands, where the arms bend and how they move and are used to really determine much of anything but I don't know if that's possible with this particular footage.

I should mention in "CTBC", TT also shows the upper arm as longer than the lower arm. One analysis of the Mem. Day footage I saw also showed the same type arm proportions; upper longer than lower. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedHawk454

 

 

Her hand on her right arm opens and closes as shes walking.

 

I'd love to see a first gen and not a video of a video of another video

 

 

 

 

YyEqJsk.gif

Share this post


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

×