Jump to content
ShadowBorn

Has this been asked about the PGF before

Recommended Posts

ThinkAboutPools
Posted (edited)
On 5/9/2019 at 12:20 PM, ShadowBorn said:

Yet, no one to this day has been able to recreate the same film using a costume while using the same camera at the same distance in the same light condition.

 

This statement here is what bugs me with those who think Patterson actually caught a Sasquatch on film. If this is your reasoning, that the beast is real because no one can duplicate the film, I think your argument falls flat on its face. There is NO POSSIBLE way that film could be reproduced. The original site has completely changed. Lighting and angles? How could you possibly measure those from a grainy film? All of the distortion the camera produces, the subjects continually moving; it would be IMPOSSIBLE to match the original film. And if it was a suit, what materials were used, how was it built, what was the size of the man wearing it, etc? When I hear people say the creature in the film must be real because the film of that creature has never been recreated I wanna scream...lol

Edited by ThinkAboutPools
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

I think it's really that the suit hasn't been recreated. And the difficulty if not impossibility of doing that with 1967 material availability. My own contention is in the area of reproducing a 30"shoulder width which falls in line with Dr. Grover Krantz's same statement. Having that kind of a shoulder to height ratio and still have arms swinging naturally from the shoulder locations is a pretty tough to replicate if not impossible. And then to imagine two cowboys so versed in professional suit-making to pull off facial movement and toe flex on top of everything else pretty much puts the whole thing out of their amateur reach.

 

Height of the subject of the film has been difficult to date to determine but the shoulder to height ratio remains the elephant in the room. Basically a 6' height yields a 30 inch shoulder spam. Ever taller estimates only result in ever wider shoulders. A lot of other aspects can be debated and have been for 50+ years but little has ever been said or debated on the 38-40% of height outlier regarding shoulder span. Personally I don't get too involved in other matters outside of that one glaring aspect.

 

I agree, the duplication of the site and its filming is absolutely open to argument as you mentioned but the criteria involved in the subject that WAS filmed is where most of the focus (pun intended :) ) has lain over the years.    

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
Posted (edited)

ThinkAboutPools, welcome to BFF. An interesting posting.

 

Rather than lose oneself being concerned about exactly duplicating PGF, how about considering simply coming close?

 

As an interested party, but one that hasn't immersed myself in the  conundrum as some have, I've yet to see even a reasonable facsimile. In fact, the attempts I've seen have been laughable.

 

Edit to add, it's the PGF that keeps me coming back to this confounding subject.

Edited by Incorrigible1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

4928A142-42C2-40B5-945E-1C30D7D4676F.jpeg

219229A9-0766-449A-9907-4778B6179DBE.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Human in a baggy suit. No muscle definition. Stovepipe legs with no prominent calf muscle. Shoulder width? about 24" max. In any regard, doubt if a couple of cowboys could even build it since the guy in the hat, Philip Morris, was supposedly a professional suit-builder. But he figured he could cash in on the PGF because the public by and large never studied what was on the film and so relied on the public's ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

Thinkaboutpools

Welcome to the BFF and yes I understand your statement. I am not saying that it has to be in the exact general area. It just never been recreated and what we are seeing is truly a real creature unless it can be proven otherwise. So far no one has proven otherwise so the film proves that this creature is real.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutPools
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the responses.

When I read about measurements and shoulder widths and such I have such a hard time believing how anyone can come up with those type of numbers based on the film with the subjects moving, camera distortion, etc. I will also admit I see very little of what people call muscle movement, tendons reacting, hell I didn't know the thing had breasts until I got on the internet decades ago...lol

And I also don't know who or how many people have actually tried to reproduce the suit, what kind of effort was made, etc. As for the Morris attempt I think the head looks pretty good. The legs certainly look stumpier and again, I can't comment on muscle and gaits and shoulder widths because I don't see what others see when they watch the film. Was this attempt by Morris a half-assed attempt? Was it rushed? Could he have done better? Has anyone done better than this? I read where Roger Patterson was very creative and a great artist. 

FWIW, this film fascinates me so I'm not here to just argue with people. I enjoy reading people's opinions and comments regarding the film. I'm probably a couple decades behind on Bigfoot reading material...lol

Edited by ThinkAboutPools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, ThinkAboutPools said:

I'm probably a couple decades behind on Bigfoot reading material...

 

Below is a great primer (with pics) about the film and why it's likely a real animal.

 

 

 

And here is another...

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

The revealed details don't show you what appears to be muscle definition?

 

Ugh.

Share this post


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

Thanks for the responses.

When I read about measurements and shoulder widths and such I have such a hard time believing how anyone can come up with those type of numbers based on the film with the subjects moving, camera distortion, etc. I will also admit I see very little of what people call muscle movement, tendons reacting, hell I didn't know the thing had breasts until I got on the internet decades ago...lol

And I also don't know who or how many people have actually tried to reproduce the suit, what kind of effort was made, etc. As for the Morris attempt I think the head looks pretty good. The legs certainly look stumpier and again, I can't comment on muscle and gaits and shoulder widths because I don't see what others see when they watch the film. Was this attempt by Morris a half-assed attempt? Was it rushed? Could he have done better? Has anyone done better than this? I read where Roger Patterson was very creative and a great artist. 

FWIW, this film fascinates me so I'm not here to just argue with people. I enjoy reading people's opinions and comments regarding the film. I'm probably a couple decades behind on Bigfoot reading material...lol

 

Jim McClarin is 6’6”. I think the sticks and debris line up well between both photos.

 

Patty’s calf muscle is well defined and easily visible. And looks nothing like the saggy wrinkled leg of the Phillip Morris costume.

17A90E28-1384-4E39-AE5E-C47F63425A86.jpeg

2EBE6F39-1C47-45BB-9227-0F7FAB9160C2.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
Posted (edited)
On 6/2/2019 at 8:01 PM, ThinkAboutPools said:

 

This statement here is what bugs me with those who think Patterson actually caught a Sasquatch on film. If this is your reasoning, that the beast is real because no one can duplicate the film, I think your argument falls flat on its face.

 

 

Think,

 

Welcome to the BFF.  Glad to have you.  I would suggest the arguement is a sound argument.   Take Bigfoot out of the equation.  Demonstrative evidence or claimed demonstrative evidence of something real can be tested if it can be duplicated.  Duplication does not always mean an exact duplication but something done in a same or similar way.  (Yes I know there are some believers who- if you did the perfect suit duplication they called for - would still say it is a real thing).   If a suspect was accused of killing his wife in downtown Chicago , how would we test to see if I could get from the airport to downtown, kill her, and get back to work in time?  I think most would agree if a man cannot drive that distance and back (in that traffic) in a limited window of time  it is unlikely he shot his wife.  We can demonstrate that by taking the same or similar conditions and  either replcate the act to show it could be done or it could not be done.

 

Quote

 

There is NO POSSIBLE way that film could be reproduced. The original site has completely changed.

 

Its not the site that is the issue, it is the suit actions.  You can find a same or similar creek bed many places.

 

Quote

 

Lighting and angles?

 

The near exact time of the shoot is known and there is even a thread on here dealing with the suns angle.  Any replication could copy this in a reasonable way.

 

Quote

 

How could you possibly measure those from a grainy film? All of the distortion the camera produces, the subjects continually moving; it would be IMPOSSIBLE to match the original film. And if it was a suit, what materials were used, how was it built, what was the size of the man wearing it, etc?

 

 

Without a time machine any suit (and it must be a suit if it not a real thing would be from 1967 or prior

 

Quote

 

 

 

When I hear people say the creature in the film must be real because the film of that creature has never been recreated I wanna scream...lol

 

 

We don't want you screaming 🙂

 

Lets talk about it

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

One more thought on Suit Replication:

 

 

 

Our issue could be looked at here as if the PGF on trial.  If we had a trial of the PGF in some generic sense, various evidence might be put forward by both sides.  One side might mention the completely irrelevant fact Roger later had an arrest warrant out for keeping the rented camera too long.  Good to consider the character of someone but not relevant to at least what is on the film.   The glaring fact would still be if it is a man in a suit, then mankind made the suit.  What one man can do, another can do.

 

Pretend then you are sitting on the conceptual PGF jury.  They might parade Stan Winston and other suit exerts out there giving their opinion the PGF is a man in a suit.  That is fine.  So you are sitting on that jury.  They say it is a man in a suit.  Roger and Bob say it is a real thing they captured on film.  All very good.

 

Don't you think you as the generic jury member would require those experts who say it is a suit to just show you how it was done?  They have fame, knowledge, resources, and so on.  It's not too much to ask.  It's like accusing a man of the crime of rape but refusing to have that man go through a DNA test.  They seem to go out of their way to not test for the truth in the case of the PGF.  

 

When discussing the alien autopsy, Stan Winston pulled out a knife nearby and easily demonstrated how there was dripping liquid or blood on the video.  He didn't just say it.  He showed it.   That is how you show something could be a trick- by doing the trick.

 

Suit replication will never be perfect and that is OK.  However it should be easy for any special effect guy to best two regular joes (in Bob and Roger).  It should be easy for any expert today to best any 1967 expert accused of making these guys a suit.  Both groups would be limited by the 1967 materials available but it should be easy.  (I am not even that impressed with suit efforts with todays materials- Messing with Sasquatch).

 

Uri Geller was running around in the 1970's/1980's saying he could bend spoons with his mind.  James Randi, being a skeptical magician himself, was able to replicate in the same or similar way the same exact spoon bending by Uri Geller.    Because he could do this, it still did not prove Uri was using to trick to bend those spoons but the demonstrative evidence highly suggested it was done by a trick and not by his mind.    That is, Randi showed it could be done and how it was done.  He did not just say it was a hoax.  He showed up and did it.  Would you accept Randi just saying, " it was a trick of some kind"?

 

To be intellectually honest we should expect a Patty suit could be replicated.  It should be easy.  Failing to do so is glaring.  I don't understand how the most hardened skeptics can overlook this when they would not overlook this in any other endeavor (spoon bending, levitation, and so on).

 

Show me.  I have no ax to grind.  Show me.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

Two big stumbling blocks in attempting a recreation are:

1. Bob Gimlin talked about seeing the muscles moving under the hair. Plus in a two frame GIF that's been posted on here before, it shows the right calf muscle flexing just as Patty's toes flex and her right heel strikes the ground.The stretch fabric necessary to show muscle movement did not exist in 1967, and didn't come into existence for about 10 or more years. This has never been rationally explained.  

 

2. If that's a human in the film, why can't another human (even an athlete) fully duplicate the walk of the figure? So far, no one has. I'm referring to all aspects of the walk and not just the bent knee part (that's the easier part), plus outdoors in similar conditions. The figure in the film was not walking on a hard laboratory floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

May I explain the shoulder width thing? It's not a hard number as much as a moveable one. It's the ratio between an arbitrary height and a shoulder width that corresponds to that height. The shoulder ration of an average 6' Human male is about 1 height to shoulder widths. So about 4:1 or about 25%. So a 6' Human will have an average of around an 18-18.5 inch shoulder span. Using that as a base, scale "Patty's" height and shoulder width. It turns out that that her shoulder/height ration is 2.32:1 which is not even close to a Human's 4:1. The rest is just easy math: 6' Human at 4:1 = 18" shoulders. 6' Patty 2.32:1 = 31". Just take off an inch or two for hair on the shoulders and one arrive at 29-30"

 

If I stretch my elbows out to the sides so that they are in a straight line I get 36" which means my elbows would only be 3" more on each side past her shoulders. So for me to take a shoulder span of 30" would be impossible and still have my arms swing normally from my shoulders. It's why Philip Morris's suit would only have at most 24" shoulders. The guy wearing the suit had shoulders that were between 20-21 inches and he was 6'2" tall. But the general public doesn't know any of that and skeptics don't enter that discussion. It's hard to discuss a shoulder width that is 40% or better than one's height.

 

Need a comparison? Shaquille O'Neal is 7'4 and has a shoulder span of 28". He's not 6' with a shoulder span of 30". If he was Patty his shoulder span according to her ratio would make him 7'4 with a shoulder span of between 36-38". So as you can see, the shoulder ratio is a relative figure arrived at from scaling the creature, not from anything like an exact height measurement. I have always thought this point to be one of the strongest in favor of Patty being a real female Bigfoot. A Human in a suit could not operate it with that shoulder span ratio and have it look anywhere near normal. There's simply too much of a  shoulder span to allow it. Think about that the next time you watch a GOOD video and observe where the shoulders swing from and where the elbow joints are and it will become clear that a Human in a suit cannot ever hope to look right in a suit with a 30" shoulder width. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Show me some muscle movement in the legs.   Thick but no sense of real movement.  Like a thick furry pair of stuffed pants:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...