Jump to content
ShadowBorn

Has this been asked about the PGF before

Recommended Posts

wiiawiwb
BFF Donor
On 5/9/2019 at 1:19 PM, Backdoc said:

I keep open the idea it could hoax.   

 

I am now totally convinced Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.  However, for several years my mild interest in the subject had me thinking JFK was killed by multiple gunmen.  I was of one belief and later the opposite (for reasons we wont cover here).

 

 

 

I'm convinced JFK was killed by multiple assassins. It's akin to the the Robert Kennedy assassination where the fatal wound came from behind him, along with two other wounds which came from behind as well, yet Sirhan approached Kennedy from the front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron
Posted (edited)

I believe it was a South American assassin/hit-man hired in concert with Cuban intelligence that performed the dirty deed based on some research I've seen. 

 

Don't ask me for the source, but when you see it---- there is huge face validity!

 

Trump would know what I mean, he watches enough TV!

Edited by bipedalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutPools
On 6/5/2019 at 12:45 AM, Incorrigible1 said:

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

 

Ugh.

I see highlights on fur/hair that may or may not be an actual calf muscle. Highlights that would most likely occur as light bounces off a body in motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutPools
On 6/4/2019 at 9:32 PM, gigantor said:

 

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

 

 

 

And here is another...

 

 

 

Thanks for that. I will watch this as time permits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutPools
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, norseman said:

 

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

I see less form of a defined calf on the pic on the left and more natural highlight. The middle pic seems to support your argument more. Couldn't someone build up their muscles under a costume to create more definition? I know, I know...prove it and re-create the walk but...

 

Yeah, the gait on the creature seems quite large but that man could be several feet further in the distance than the creature.

Edited by ThinkAboutPools

Share this post


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

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.

 

 

Could it be that the suit has never been re-created due to the fact that no one has really ever put in any decent effort into re-creating it? Is it too much hassle and just not worth the time? No one is on trial here so re-creating the suit would only appease a few people and as you said there are some who would bark no matter how perfect the re-creation was. Do you believe Roger Patterson was a unique and creative person? He was a wildlife artist, I think I read. Artists see things much differently than non-artists. They see form and shape, highlights and shadows, texture and details. Is it possible Roger Patterson made a really **** good costume and the time and effort to re-create the costume really isn't worth it to other highly creative people? As a "less creative" person I am compared to someone like Roger to have been, it wouldn't be worth it to me to try and re-create the costume or film. I see very little point in it because it would be highly unlikely to prove anything to anybody that's researched this whole thing and already made up their mind. I remember reading about a million dollar offer to re-create the film either on here or another website. We all know no one was going to pay a million dollars no matter how close someone got to a re-creation...lol  There may have not been any real attempt at re-creating the suit due to time, money, apathy, etc. You'd need a very determined creative and artistic person to do it and how many of us are that? Roger Patterson may have been all of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
Posted (edited)

The only governments with the sheer gall to be remotely involved (and governments were definitely involved) were Cuba (Fidel already had an assassination order against him by Kennedy, so had nothing to lose), the Soviet Union (involved in secondary/support roles, and was too powerful to be invaded by the US in retaliation), and our own shadow government, which the Trump election has proven is alive, arrogant, sinister, and capable of such a horrid act.

 

The missile crisis brought all toes to the line. It was nose-to-nose. Apparently, it was too much for American deep state intelligence powers. A relative of Mrs. Huntster was on the ground in Havana during the crisis, his story is absolutely incredible, and it illustrates the incredible stakes involved.

 

I believe all three governments were involved, and those three governments used multiple assets to pull it off without being held accountable for their crimes. The fall guys were Oswald and the Warren Commission, who took on all the blame for the assassination itself and then the coverup.

 

I believe the coverup was almost thwarted, and it's clearly weak, and such an assassination of an American president will not occur again by big players unless the consequences are simply too great not to kill him. That said, I watch for an assassination attempt on Trump, and believe that it is very, very possible, especially if he is re-elected. If it occurs, this time it won't be the Russians. It will be westerners from the Five Eyes. Trump swims in waters filled with sharks.

 

In all fairness, Kennedy was in power when Diem was assassinated, and he approved assassination attempts against Castro. There may have been others. Live by the sword, and you may well die by the sword.

 

"Et tu, Brute........."

 

 

Edited by Huntster
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

The President's skullcap was blown onto the trunk of the limo. Oswald fired from behind. Who ya gonna believe? Your lying eyes?

 

It's utterly transparent there was a coverup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
4 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

The President's skullcap was blown onto the trunk of the limo. Oswald fired from behind. Who ya gonna believe? Your lying eyes?

 

It's utterly transparent there was a coverup.

 

Well that was because Oswald’s bullet hid the dash, ricocheted and hit the rear view mirror, turned again and hit the driver and then deflected and hit the President in the head.

 

Besides Oswald was a Marine... they train fer rifle pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, ThinkAboutPools said:

I see less form of a defined calf on the pic on the left and more natural highlight. The middle pic seems to support your argument more. Couldn't someone build up their muscles under a costume to create more definition? I know, I know...prove it and re-create the walk but...

 

Yeah, the gait on the creature seems quite large but that man could be several feet further in the distance than the creature.

 

They have muscle suits now yes. But not in 67..... Following logic Roger Patterson should not have been a broke cowboy chasing Bigfoot around. He should have been the premiere Hollywood special effects company making millions of dollars. Because his “suit” exhibits qualities not to be seen by Hollywood for another 40 years. The muscles, the face movement, the skin four way flex, the breasts movement, etc. He missed his calling.... 

 

Undoubtly they are several feet from each other. Jim Green and Roger Patterson are never going to line up perfectly 6 months apart. But even then I think Patty’s bulk is pretty apparent against Jim McClarin at 6’6”.

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
21 hours ago, ThinkAboutPools said:

Could it be that the suit has never been re-created due to the fact that no one has really ever put in any decent effort into re-creating it?

 

Nope.  There have been a lot of attempts to re-create the PGf subject, several of which have been presented right here on this very site over the years.  Please refer to Blevins, Morris, DFOOT, McSquatch, The BBC's 'Making Monsters', X Creatures and many others.  Their attempts were less than stellar.  This was even touted by some as being "pretty close":

 

38260695_BlevinsBFSuit.jpg.b220a20a54b2a31430ffa560323ff969.jpg

 

It simply cannot be done.  The fact is that, PGf recreations notwithstanding, there are zero Bigfoot costumes of any sort that even approach it.  There is definitely interest though, hundreds if not thousands of Bigfoot shows and movies have been made and there is still no costume that even compares to it.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On 6/6/2019 at 2:41 AM, ThinkAboutPools said:

Could it be that the suit has never been re-created due to the fact that no one has really ever put in any decent effort into re-creating it? Is it too much hassle and just not worth the time? No one is on trial here so re-creating the suit would only appease a few people and as you said there are some who would bark no matter how perfect the re-creation was.

 

A couple things about that.  Stan Winston, Peter Burke, X Creatures consulted special effects guys, and so on are just some of the people who have agreed to appear on TV discussing their opinion about the PGF being a man in a suit from the view of special effects experts.   At least in Burke's case he at least offered a couple of examples of how he thought it could be done.  Then he closed with, "IF it's a suit, I don't know how they did that back in 1967" because he thought the way to show the PGF movements was with stretch fur which did not exist in 1967.   In the case of X Creatures the entire point of the show was to show the PGF was a hoax.  That means they had a producer, a budget, and a lot of air play on TV.  So what do the consulted experts do?  Do they make a suit which was THE point of the entire show?  No, they grab an off the rack suit and suggest it was never intended to be a reproduction.  Forget for a min they grabbed the same kind of camera, creek bed and so on to prove it was a hoax.  This show appeared in the US and the UK.  Stan Winston stated the suit was so bad anyone working for him would get fired making a suit like that and it could be made today for $200.  If probably cost x creatures more than $200 just to rent the suit.

 

 

 

On 6/6/2019 at 2:41 AM, ThinkAboutPools said:

 

Do you believe Roger Patterson was a unique and creative person? He was a wildlife artist, I think I read. Artists see things much differently than non-artists.

 

 

Having been offered a full ride scolarship in art, I can tell you there is a big diff between the art of drawing, painting, sculpting.  Also, Roger was said to be broke.  the only evidence of him sculpting anything comes from a Bigfoot face paperweight looking sculpture looking like it was made by a 10 year old

 

 

On 6/6/2019 at 2:41 AM, ThinkAboutPools said:

 

They see form and shape, highlights and shadows, texture and details. Is it possible Roger Patterson made a really **** good costume and the time and effort to re-create the costume really isn't worth it to other highly creative people?

 

No it is not close to possible.

 

On 6/6/2019 at 2:41 AM, ThinkAboutPools said:

 

As a "less creative" person I am compared to someone like Roger to have been, it wouldn't be worth it to me to try and re-create the costume or film.

 

The only way the PGF has any chance of being a hoax if if a highly creatirve person (hollywood) made a suit either for kicks or for $$$$.   Even then the 1967 limits of materials makes that a long shot but it is possible.

 

On 6/6/2019 at 2:41 AM, ThinkAboutPools said:

 

I see very little point in it because it would be highly unlikely to prove anything to anybody that's researched this whole thing and already made up their mind.

 

I will say again even the best replication -if accomplished and sucessful - would never convince the most hardened believers.  Yet, it would convince the bulk of most of them and nealry all of the general public.

 

On 6/6/2019 at 2:41 AM, ThinkAboutPools said:

 

 I remember reading about a million dollar offer to re-create the film either on here or another website. We all know no one was going to pay a million dollars no matter how close someone got to a re-creation...lol  There may have not been any real attempt at re-creating the suit due to time, money, apathy, etc. You'd need a very determined creative and artistic person to do it and how many of us are that?

 

 

If you need such a person recreate it knowing the end product think about how skilled the person who created it from scratch has to be!  Roger was not that guy.

 

On 6/6/2019 at 2:41 AM, ThinkAboutPools said:

Roger Patterson may have been all of that.

 

No evidence at all this was the case as there is no evidence he had that skill set in any way.  He was a good drawer and a very very average sculptor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

This "suit" isn't bad at all:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
Posted (edited)
On 6/6/2019 at 2:02 AM, ThinkAboutPools said:

I see less form of a defined calf on the pic on the left and more natural highlight.

 

A still pic of the PGF is fine to study.  Lucky for us as the viewer the PGF subject is in motion.  It is in motion the PGF is most impressive.  In any other endeavor we would ask for those things made to be in motion to also be tested in motion in addition to the still pic/view.  Here is where most suit fail and the PGF continues to impress.  There are 3 great examples of this:

 

1)  The foot on the PGF has toes which extend.  This is something not seen on the original PGF but is observed on a close up and stabilized view of the PGF.  

 

2) Upon the lookback, there is a point where Patty steps down and you can see the weight or her upper body being observed muscle- wise or thigh-wise absorbing the force into her right leg.  Messing with Sasquatch suit does not do this in any way nor does Harry and the Henderson's.  That is a dynamic we would expect to be present if Patty is a real creature.  Its' presence doesn't mean she is real but it takes some explaining by those who think it is a hoax to show us this effect being repeated in a suit.  This does NOT MEAN any suit maker must make a Patty recreation.  All they should have to do is just take one of 100 examples on film and show us of this occurring just once.  We should note movement seen on suits tends to be only because they are like a bad ill fitting furry pair of coveralls.

 

3) The walk in entirely unique and smooth as a cat.  When you compare Jim McClarin's walk, Jim like any human walks stiff legged where it is one stilt to another stilt the way people walk.  Patty maintains a knocked knee bent leg all the way through the whole time we can observe her until she moves too far away.   Unless there is something indigenous to a suit making any wearer end up walking that way just by wearing it, it is a unique walk that has puzzled many biomechanical experts.   I am open to the idea there could be something about wearing some suit that might result in a Patty Walk.   I think its very unlikely but possible.  I don't think we can press enough on the idea a man walks stiff legged.   That is just the way it goes unless there is 1) a pathology of some kind 2) some effort of the wanting to decide to change their walk.    That opens up a whole lot of additional issues, and 3) something unique about the fit of the suit result in the wearing- not deciding- to walk that way but just being force to walk that way due to the suit itself.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
Posted (edited)

And then there are the massive shoulders in the walk-away with a normal-looking arm swing from shoulder joints and elbow joints that are in their correct locations with arms that hang straight down. Do that in a 6' suit that has a 28-30" shoulder width. Or a 7' suit that has a 38" shoulder span:

637641701_Patty2.PNG.24f8e15902eea0f17b00bfbf2d08dfe8.PNG

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...