Jump to content
Cotter

How much longer should we wait for a PGF recreation before it's determined it can't be done?

Recommended Posts

roguefooter

Sweaty is your inbox full or something? It said you can't receive messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
10 hours ago, roguefooter said:

Sweaty is your inbox full or something? It said you can't receive messages.

 

 

I just deleted a few conversations, rogue.....so my Inbox should be able to receive PM's, now.  Thank you very much!  :) 

 

The last two days, I got very busy in the evening....and didn't try calling Clint. I should be able to call him tonight. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

meh...

 

these days who needs a phone number to contact someone?   :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Just to let everyone know....a little while ago, I sent an email to Clint....(assuming the email address I received is his email address).....inquiring about this claim, of kit's...

 

Quote

My hope is that someone else can, but I know for a fact that the PGF being fully exposed by one of the principles is coming in the next few years when a certain person passes on. 

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/topic/43765-pgf-royalities/?page=48#comment-887776

 

If I don't receive a response from Clint within the next week, or so....I'll try calling him. :) 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I am interested to find out how this turns out. However,no matter what he says . The fact is he was not there and anything he says is nothing but words. 

Regardless if he says it was faked or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
7 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I am interested to find out how this turns out. However,no matter what he says . The fact is he was not there and anything he says is nothing but words. 

Regardless if he says it was faked or not. 

 

I'm getting a strong hunch that it's about way more than just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

We are told Roger shook the camera with intent.  I will put aside how this makes little sense since the closest video of Patty is also when the camera really stops shaking.

 

I watched several short videos on YouTube where people are shaking things with intent. These include things like shaking a bottle and so on.  It seems to me the common trait of these shaking attempts is an even level ofshaking. That is, when someone is asked to, "Take that can of Coke and shake it" they tend to shake it back and fourth evenly.   They might shake it slow and short and then maybe are asked to increased the vigor.  Everytime there is a back and fourth up and down or left and right which appears pretty even or balanced..  Say you are shaking that can of coke.  You might do this for ten seconds but each movement side to side or up and down tends to mirror the previous shaking movement.  

 

I don't buy the idea Roger shook the camera with any intent since the shaking effect just doesn't look even to me.  In the book WRMP (Munns) it is noted how there are some twists/rotations in the act of shaking as well.

 

If anything, IF the PGF was a hoax it must be the shaking was an accidental effect of running toward the man in a suit (which might have caused an unintended finger click or two be it running for a real creature or a hoax).  Once Roger got close enough he positioned himself for a more stable closer shot.   I don't know if I believe that but I can at least consider that.   The idea the shaking we see occurs by design just does not fly with me.  It fails to cover or hide a flawed suit.  Munns described the running camera movements seen on the PGF as 'frantic'.  That matches what Roger claimed at least.

 

 

 

Shaking by design                                                                 No way

 

Shaking by accident just from running with                           Possible

a camera over varied terrain        

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

I know it's been theorized before by some that Roger shook the camera on purpose to hide flaws in the suit. A counter question has been mentioned before by numerous people and it's still a valid question; If Roger shook the camera on purpose to hide suit flaws, why did he steady the camera when he was the closest to Patty and got the best and clearest frames of the video? Common sense says flaws will be more noticeable closer up rather than farther away. 

 

After 50+ years of study of those frames, how many flaws have been detected? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Yet on the flip side skeptics would like to have folks thing that two cowboys, completely uneducated in the field of professional special effects, made that perfect suit. So perfect that there are NO FLAWS. NONE whatsoever. From facial expression all the way down to toe flexion. It tells me that skeptics are the ones employing confirmation bias- not the other way round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

I’ve never claimed that Roger built the suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

I’ve never claimed that Roger built the suit.

 

Fine.  Do you claim that Roger shook the camera by intent though?  I thought you did.  If so, then how do you explain Roger doing his best to stabilize the camera at the near closest point of the filming of Patty?  How do you explain the really foolishness if you do a hoax of having that suit in the best daylight possible and out in the open.  We are talking fall non-glare sunlight with the subject effectively out in the open.  

 

You contend some great suit maker made this suit out of a sows ear (Morris suit).  Perhaps some great Hollywood suit maker of the era made that suit since Roger was well stocked with money to hire such an expert.

All fine I guess.

 

The Q is this:   Why did Roger shake the film until he got really close and then negated the reason to shake that film by getting stable at the closest point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
2 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

I’ve never claimed that Roger built the suit.

 

Never said you did. Besides, this is not about you.

 

37 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

The Q is this:   Why did Roger shake the film until he got really close and then negated the reason to shake that film by getting stable at the closest point?

 

^^

Yeah, I like this :) 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

From bd earlier; "Why did Roger shake the film until he got really close and then negated the reason to shake that film by getting stable at the closest point?"

 

From the standpoint of a hoax, what we are apparently supposed to believe is Roger and Bob G. planned this brilliant hoax that fooled people at two movie studios, plus many other people, including some scientists, but while filming the hoax, apparently Roger either completely ignored or completely forgot that flaws in the suit, or maybe problems in performing the walk by the actor, would show up better in closer shots, and proceeded to get closer to the figure and get the best frames of the video. Closer shots enable more detailed analysis so any flaws or problems are more easily spotted.

 

There's nothing like planning a hoax that you hope will fool people and then sabotaging yourself by getting the best shots at the closest point and making detection of fakery easier to accomplish.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
1 hour ago, OkieFoot said:

 Closer shots enable more detailed analysis so any flaws or problems are more easily spotted.

 

  

 

Yep

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

^^

:P bd, that was good.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...