Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

Bill

It's okay.

 

I'm not impressed with anything you've ever written.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
5 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

Have you read this paper?

 

 

 

 

Very interesting.  Thank you for posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
11 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Both sides of this issue are beating a dead horse.    Under the conditions the film was made and lack of documentation prevents either side from being able to prove their point.   Both opponents and proponents put far to much weight on the importance of the film.    It neither proves nor disproves existence of BF at this point in time.    While a modern version would be interesting it would prove nothing either other than suggest that BF or the Patty costume survives to this day.  

 

Sorry to see that your eyes have 'glazed over', SWW.....regarding what the film shows.  

 

The realistic details seen on Patty, as highlighted in the images/animations I posted.....are all far beyond what is seen in any suit. 

 

The truth of the matter is....given the vast/distinct differences between Patty and 'men in suits', it is rather easy to conclude that the film is legit.  :) 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Sweaty:   I have seen dozens of artists illustrations submitted by BF witnesses and not one looks very similar to Patty.  There are major differences.      As a matter of fact the picture I took of the juvenile has ears completely unlike Patty in that they are much higher on the head.     Either Patty is somehow unique or there are more than one species of BF out there.    Admittedly I have not had a face to face encounter with an adult BF.   Those who have on the forum are in a better position to judge the authenticity of Patty than I am.     Artists renditions may have muddied my thinking in that I suspect there is a lot of influence of the artists on each others renditions.   But my point is that the P/G film is not good enough to get main stream science looking into the possibility of existence.   A big part of that reluctance to investigate is the problems with the circumstances,  film makers backgrounds, processing, and lack of documentation.    No amount of arm chair quarterbacking of a 50 year old event can change any of that.    Had P/G been scientists and had the same encounter, the whole thing could have turned out different as far as involvement and acceptance by science.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

To Sweti's point, I want to see a video of someone inside a full suit who displays the muscle movement that Patty in the PGF clearly shows.  I also want to see someone inside a full suit move themselves with the smooth glide we see Patty do effortlessly using her highly-unusual, non-compliant gait over an extended distance.  Her gait was so unusual I would bet no one here ever heard of a non-compliant gait before the PGF.

 

Provide that and I will listen arguments that Patty is a man in suit.  Until that happens, the PGF is the real deal as far as I am concerned.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
3 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Sweaty:   I have seen dozens of artists illustrations submitted by BF witnesses and not one looks very similar to Patty.  There are major differences.      As a matter of fact the picture I took of the juvenile has ears completely unlike Patty in that they are much higher on the head.     Either Patty is somehow unique or there are more than one species of BF out there.    Admittedly I have not had a face to face encounter with an adult BF.   Those who have on the forum are in a better position to judge the authenticity of Patty than I am.     Artists renditions may have muddied my thinking in that I suspect there is a lot of influence of the artists on each others renditions.   But my point is that the P/G film is not good enough to get main stream science looking into the possibility of existence.   A big part of that reluctance to investigate is the problems with the circumstances,  film makers backgrounds, processing, and lack of documentation.    No amount of arm chair quarterbacking of a 50 year old event can change any of that.    Had P/G been scientists and had the same encounter, the whole thing could have turned out different as far as involvement and acceptance by science.  

 

Agree with the italicized part 100%.

 

Cant speak on the physical characteristics as I have not seen one in person.  If I were to speculate however, I'd guess there is only 1 species but they may vary slightly based on diet and climate.  Heavy vs. skinny,  shaggy hair vs. shorter hair, height, etc.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Additionally, I suspect most sightings are of not only male BF but probably older juvenile male BF unless they are very large.      A common sighting description is huge shoulders tapering down the body to much smaller hips.      Not unlike a human wearing football pad gear.   Patty has hips and a butt as one would expect of an older female humanoid.    It could be that BF females are much more reluctant to get close enough to even take a chance on being seen.   After all it is thought that BF females are not that much larger than human males and would have more reason to fear men.    Older male juveniles are likely to be more brave and foolish if they are anything like humans in the same age range.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
On 1/14/2019 at 8:11 PM, SweatyYeti said:

The truth of the matter is....given the vast/distinct differences between Patty and 'men in suits', it is rather easy to conclude that the film is legit.

 

The P/G film has been viewed more times than M.A.S.H. reruns. Does that count for anything?

 

4 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

A common sighting description is huge shoulders tapering down the body to much smaller hips.

 

I believe many descriptions are 'cherry picked' details to conform to previous reports. People tend to 'humanize' the description of heads and faces. I am trying to remember a person who did some digital image work on Patty's mouth. I saw the results and Patty's mouth did not have a 'human' like location relative to the nose. I think the person is Owen Caddy, about 2007---2008. Ring a bell anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
12 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Sweaty:   I have seen dozens of artists illustrations submitted by BF witnesses and not one looks very similar to Patty.  There are major differences.      As a matter of fact the picture I took of the juvenile has ears completely unlike Patty in that they are much higher on the head.  

 

Well, SWW....film images carry much more weight than illustrations/drawings do. So, that is a weak point, at best. 

 

Regarding the picture you took...have you posted it anywhere? I'd love to see it...if that's possible.  :) 

 

 

Quote

  But my point is that the P/G film is not good enough to get main stream science looking into the possibility of existence.   A big part of that reluctance to investigate is the problems with the circumstances,  film makers backgrounds, processing, and lack of documentation.    No amount of arm chair quarterbacking of a 50 year old event can change any of that.  

 

The point I was making had nothing to do with 'mainstream scientists'. It had/has to do with the science behind the analysis of the film images.

 

'Scientific analysis' can be performed by anyone in the general public, without the help of officially accredited scientists. I have no scientific credentials...but yet, I noticed, and produced graphics illustrating one significant realistic feature on Patty.....the fact that the toes on her right foot appear as two different lengths...when seen from above the foot, and when seen from below the foot. This small detail matches perfectly with how a real, live foot appears, and behaves.....and not at all like the way a fake, costume foot would appear. 

The toes on a fake foot....if hinged, to produce the effect of 'toe movement'.....would simply appear to be the same length, when viewed from above and below the foot. 

 

And....no 'Officially Accredited Scientists' were involved in this bit of analysis.....(including, but not limited to...Dr. Jeff Meldrum). 

 

Also, in your earlier post....you sounded as if you were simply dumping on the value/worth of the PGF....(rather than making a point regarding 'mainstream scientists'). 

I have a polar opposite view...I happen to hold the film in very high esteem....due to it being a ONE-of-a-kind piece of film footage. There is no other piece of film footage that compares to it, in existence. To me...that counts for a lot. I consider the film to be worthy of continued analysis.....without any expiration date.  :)  

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
15 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

 

The P/G film has been viewed more times than M.A.S.H. reruns. Does that count for anything?

 

 

 

 

 

That's for sure.  I think its pretty famous in the general public.

 

Well Known vs well understood:

 

When I came to the BFF a while back I thought I knew/ understood a lot about the PGF.  It was not until coming to the BFF where I seemed to understand what I was looking at from a camera operator standpoint.  That is, I must admit I did not understand Roger runs toward the subject and there are multiple starts and stops.  This was made most clear to me after viewing the Munns Report on YouTube and later reading When Roger Met Patty.  Before that, I just didn't get it and that is from someone who had a decent interest in the film.

 

I would bet most people out there generally have no idea whatsoever about the camera operator Roger running toward the subject.  Fewer still would have no idea about the starts and stops. Instead they likely think a guy grabbed a camera and started filming.  Then they think Roger either 1) shoot the camera on purpose to hide the subject in a suit or 2) shook the camera out of excitement while basically standing there filming.  <---- (Yes I know now he was not just standing there).

 

I would bet most of the pubic as no clue of:  The film camera operator is running toward the subject with multiple starts and stops, stabilizes himself at the nearest point and then repositions himself later as the subject walk far enough away temporarily hidden by some old dried out looking trees.

 

I bring this up because I have seem experts on TV who are asked to look at the film.  Regardless of the opinion you can just tell they have no clue about what they are viewing just as a matter of film.  This is further magnified by people like that grey-haired-lady-scientist whose name escapes me.  She said Bigfoot doesn't exist due to food supply. Large Brain = big need for foot and called the woods of the PNW "a vast wasteland"   then in the end (editing?) she is shown the film and immediately admits the walk of Patty is "odd" or words that effect where she admits the walk if not human and not ape.   I have to think she has no idea why the camera shakes, why is doesn't shake and so on.

 

People can come to whatever conclusion the wish.  However, with the understanding or at least exposure to the play by play of WHAT happens during this film, it is harder to understand some aspects of what an opinion is based on.  It's a heck of a lot harder to suggest Roger shook the camera by design when the story of the filming itself is understood.  Sadly without that rest of the story its easy to throw that mud against the wall and see what sticks.

 

Knowing of the film is not the same as understanding the film regardless of real or hoax.

Edited by Backdoc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

If someone started with the idea that the PGF is a hoax and then took a sheet of paper and listed out all of the evidence and analysis that pointed to the subject in the film as being a "human in a suit", how many items would be on the list? And what would the items be?

 

It would certainly be a much shorter list than a list of evidence and analysis that pointed to the subject as being a real Bigfoot.

Edited by OkieFoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Admin

Please continue the discussion here:

 

Share this post


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

×