Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

PGF Research Update

Recommended Posts

Bill

Gigantor:

 

Thank you for the welcome.

 

In answer to your question, I am 100% positive and confident the PGF is an authentic filming of a real encounter with a biologically novel entity, and is not a faked film with a human in a costume. I have explored a tremendous number of ways a film could be faked, and what indications of such might be analyzed, and found zero indications of such in the film. I have considered many indicators of what would be consistent with a true and spontaneously filmed event, and find many indications consistent with a true event.

 

I have considered every argument for Patty being a suit worn by a human, and find them all failing. I have compared multiple things about Patty's body to real human anatomy, as well as other primate anatomy, and find the similarities compelling. I know what materials and techniques were available for creature suit makers in 1967, because I was active in the craft in the late 60"s myself, so I draw from real working experience with materials and techniques of the era. She could not have been made then by creature costume technology.

 

That is not to say the PGf isn't without it's mysteries and perplexing elements. There's something very curious about her left hand that I have not resolved yet, to mention one element. The Segment three camera rotation blur, while the image is sharp in the upper right corner, is a very curious phenomenon I can't yet explain, and the missing second reel content continues to be mystifying.  But none of these concerns alters my conclusion. The film is real. It is not a fake. Continued research will only strengthen this position until it is accepted as the prevailing conclusion (and allowing for some diehard skeptics who will go to their grave denying the truth of its reality.)

 

I intend to continue the research and continue strengthening the proof because the film deserves to be recognized as a remarkable film document of an extraordinary true event.

 

Thank you for asking. :)

 

Bill

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Bill, I don't know if you missed my post from yesterday.....but I am interested in getting your thoughts regarding these two questions...

 

"Regarding Jim's recreation walk....is it pretty certain that, at the F352 location, Jim's path was further back in the scene than Patty's was? 

 

If so, what would be your best estimate of how much further back he was, from Patty's location? My present estimate is somewhere between 12 - 25 feet."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

Welcome back, Bill.

We are all excited to learn what you've been up to and where you are taking your future research.

 

mb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

MB

 

Thank you for the welcome.

 

Sweaty:

 

I hesitate to offer an estimate of jim's position or how far back he was compared to Patty, because when I do offer a distance, I want to back that disclosure up with meticulous math analysis to substantiate the conclusion. I don't have the math done yet, I need to do some lens distortion tests, and ideally some more bench testing cameras and lenses (both the K-100 and the Revere Art Deco model Green is photographed using (and it is not the one he thought he used, the Keystone camera he later owned, and claimed to have used). Green's camera lens and Roger's camera lens were off by about 0.8mm in focal length, when one is compared to another, and I want to see if i can replicate that, as well as bring in some other experts to check my math. So I have a few ducks to get in a row before i can offer my solution to the Jim vs patty question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Thanks for your reply, Bill. :) 

 

I was hoping you could at least give us your thoughts, regarding my first question....as to whether or not it is a certainty that Jim was further back in the scene than Patty was...in the F352 spot.

 

The reason why I'm asking you that, is because in a recent conversation...Norseman was claiming that the Jim/Patty F352 side-by-side comparison is an accurate comparison....(as it stands, without the need for any corrections)....as if the two subjects were both standing in virtually the same spot...in the scene. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Bill:

 

Glad to see you're alive and well.

 

Good luck persuading anyone beyond this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Sweaty:

 

Jim is further back, yes, but I can't say by how much until the work is done. I want the number to be accurate and I must factor lens distortion into the matter, both for how far Green's camera  was behind Patterson's camera  and for how much further Jim was from Patty. Both distances need to be considered.

 

 

Squatchy

 

Yes, I am alive and well. As to persuading anyone outside this forum, actually I have accumulated a fairly wide circle of associates outside this forum who are supportive of my research and share my view of the film. I realize that one of the skeptic mantras is to claim nobody outside this forum cares about the PGF or thinks it's anything other than a hoax, but I know from experience that the inverse is true.

 

Anyways, I'm in it for the long haul, and in the end, the truth will prevail. It's just a matter that in today's social climate, it's harder to bring the truth to its rightful position of acceptance, not just on this issue, but on many issues.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Once again, good luck with everything Bill.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Squatchy:

 

I have trouble figuring you out. I do see what you post elsewhere, and it's a very different attitude, clearly intent on demeaning me with no regard for truth. Call me an optimist, or naive perhaps, but I hold on to the expectation truth will ultimately prevail, and those who invent lies or distort the truth will ultimately fail. So my expectation is you will lose, in the end, and your efforts will have been a waste. But in doing so, you also demean the very venue where you share your non-factual remarks. This is, of course, my opinion, and I don't expect it to change you, as you seem to be fairly well set in your ways. But i expect you will tire of your effort and goal long before I tire of mine, and so in that matter, I expect to be the last man standing for my understanding of the truth.

 

That said, thank you for your offering of "good luck".

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist

Great to see Bill back and responding in detail to thread discussion.  I wish him great success with his new software development technologies and solving more problems mentioned with the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Good to hear from you Bill. Hope all is well with all. Lookin' forward to future research. An best of luck with your present an future endeavours. 

:drinks:

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, Bill said:

Sweaty:

 

Jim is further back, yes, but I can't say by how much until the work is done. I want the number to be accurate and I must factor lens distortion into the matter, both for how far Green's camera  was behind Patterson's camera  and for how much further Jim was from Patty. Both distances need to be considered.

 

Bill

 

 

Thanks for your answer, Bill.  

 

I wasn't pressing you for your estimate on how much further back Kim was, than Patty. My first question was only regarding the certainty of Jim being further back. That was all. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

bipedalist and Pat

 

Thank you both for the welcome.

 

Yes, all's well. Vietman's quite a fascinating culture, and the resounding success of the Intel Corporation's new chip factory is a model lesson for tech companies wanting to establish an operation here.

 

On the PGF front, the image enhancement technologies are remarkable, and so I look forward to applying them to the task. There is also looming on the horizon a solution to one of the more fascinating mysteries of the PGF aftermath (not the event itself but the research on the event).I think I'll know more on that in a week or so. I am not participating in any of the anniversary events coming in October (except the Finding Bigfoot program I mentioned earlier, which was filmed last April in Willow Creek), but while the anniversary is noteworthy, the real research task will continue beyond that event.

 

Bill

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, Bill said:

Squatchy:

 

I have trouble figuring you out. I do see what you post elsewhere, and it's a very different attitude, clearly intent on demeaning me with no regard for truth. Call me an optimist, or naive perhaps, but I hold on to the expectation truth will ultimately prevail, and those who invent lies or distort the truth will ultimately fail. So my expectation is you will lose, in the end, and your efforts will have been a waste. But in doing so, you also demean the very venue where you share your non-factual remarks.

 

Bill

 

 

I took the easy road, Bill.....I put him on 'Ignore'. :popcorn: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

I'm considering the same, as reason doesn't seem to make any impact or bridge the intellectual divide.

 

As an afterthought, if a sociologist ever wanted to do a study of how factual information is willfully and maliciously altered or outright transformed into lies, they'd find a stunning study example in what I post here, and what is then carried over to another discussion and blatantly misrepresented over there. In a way, its sad, the willful disregard for any semblance of truth. :(

(first time I ever used the sad emoticon)

 

Bill

Edited by Bill
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×