Jump to content
Bigfoot Gumbo

Where is the original PGF?

Recommended Posts

norseman
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

Another post with 'deep thought',  throughout.  

 

Have you ever considered joining Jref, Norse?  I think you'd fit right in, there. :) 

 

 

 

 

Nope. They would kick me off of there in about 5 seconds....

 

But you could join and fight em for Kits contact info? That would be entertaining! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

Nope. They would kick me off of there in about 5 seconds....

 

But you could join and fight em for Kits contact info? That would be entertaining! :D

 

 

I could probably find his contact info, myself.  :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
On 10/14/2019 at 4:52 PM, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

I could probably find his contact info, myself.  :)  

 

Well...... I think a job worth doing? Is probably best done yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
On 10/14/2019 at 3:21 PM, norseman said:

 

You and Kit have WAAAY more in common than you will ever realize Sweaty.....

 

Every Batman needs a Joker I guess.

If you keep making comments like that then you are going to wind up on THE list. You are already part of the signature with your barbaric method for securing  a single type specimen.:D

As you know I fully support. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk
On 10/12/2019 at 12:15 AM, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

Additionally...I don't see the PGF as having an "expiration date".....and likewise, neither do I consider kit's "Patty suit" claim to have an expiration date. I'll continue to work on both. :) 

 

Those who were actually there aren't getting any younger and their memories arent getting any clearer with age, so the expiration date is debatable, before it is doomed to be inconclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
18 minutes ago, starchunk said:

Those who were actually there aren't getting any younger and their memories arent getting any clearer with age, so the expiration date is debatable, before it is doomed to be inconclusive.

 

I'll have to disagree with you.    It is quite conclusive.   The problem is the suit.   According to hollywood costume designers, the subject matter experts, it was not possible to build a suit that moved / flexed / bulged in the anatomically correct ways Patty moves, flexes, and bulges in the film.   Moreover, her dimensions ... not just size, but relationship of key joints and limb lengths ... cannot be faked with a suit.    Since they ARE the experts, and since every attempt to prove them wrong has fallen so flat as to appear to be a caricature of a real attempt, a rational person has to assume that, as they said, and as demonstrated, even with BBC-level budget, there could be no suit.    A suit was not an option.   CGI wasn't an option.   What are you proposing instead?    ETs?   Demons?   Nephilim?    Interdimensional beings?   

 

The question I ponder is what is it about bigfoot that so terrifies some people that they will grasp at those silly straws rather than look seriously at bigfoot?   Fear-driven desperation is not pretty.  :(

 

MIB

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starchunk
1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

I'll have to disagree with you.    It is quite conclusive.   The problem is the suit.   According to hollywood costume designers, the subject matter experts, it was not possible to build a suit that moved / flexed / bulged in the anatomically correct ways Patty moves, flexes, and bulges in the film.   Moreover, her dimensions ... not just size, but relationship of key joints and limb lengths ... cannot be faked with a suit.    Since they ARE the experts, and since every attempt to prove them wrong has fallen so flat as to appear to be a caricature of a real attempt, a rational person has to assume that, as they said, and as demonstrated, even with BBC-level budget, there could be no suit.    A suit was not an option.   CGI wasn't an option.   What are you proposing instead?    ETs?   Demons?   Nephilim?    Interdimensional beings?   

 

The question I ponder is what is it about bigfoot that so terrifies some people that they will grasp at those silly straws rather than look seriously at bigfoot?   Fear-driven desperation is not pretty.  :(

 

MIB

 

ETS, prove it. Nephillim etc are utter nonsense. What I'm saying is you'll never know for sure, because with all direct witnesses gone over time, there will only be speculation. No matter how certain you are, it's still just conjecture and opinion, just like with the skeptical side. No definitive answer, just a piece of Bigfooting history. sad, but likely.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
11 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

If you keep making comments like that then you are going to wind up on THE list. You are already part of the signature with your barbaric method for securing  a single type specimen.:D

As you know I fully support. 

 

I probably already am on THE list! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
2 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

ETS, prove it. Nephillim etc are utter nonsense. What I'm saying is you'll never know for sure, because with all direct witnesses gone over time, there will only be speculation. No matter how certain you are, it's still just conjecture and opinion, just like with the skeptical side. No definitive answer, just a piece of Bigfooting history. sad, but likely.

 

There is only speculation NOW with witnesses alive.

 

I met Bob Gimlin and talked mule packing with the man. I enjoyed myself immensely. I could go pack in the mountains with Bob for a month and never bring up Bigfoot and enjoy myself immensely....but from a logical standpoint Bob can not snap his fingers and put Patty on a examination table for me. Nor can he do that for science.

 

In order for Bob Gimlin or any witness to be proven right? Is going to take more than a film, any film. 

 

The bottom line is that if these films are going to be taken seriously? We need physical evidence to back them up.Putting my “barbaric” method aside. A fossil find would be enormous. Or solid DNA from scat, saliva, bone, tissue, etc from a living creature would be irrefutable.

 

This is where the field should focus it’s efforts. Leaving cameras and dental resin at home.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
5 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I'll have to disagree with you.    It is quite conclusive.   The problem is the suit.  

 

The suit is the issue which breads other issues.  Those issues are thing which are very significant. The significance of these issue cannot be minimized.  They include limb body ratios, footprints, 1967 limitation in fur materials, the 'Patty Walk' and so on.  Taken on at a time some if these might be minimized as no big deal to some but ALL of these conditions must be explained each and every time if Patty is a suit.  

 

We don't just look at Patty and say, "Is this a person in a suit or not?  What do you think, look like a man in a fur suit to you?"   We must really say first it must be either a real creature of a man in a suit.  

 

We cannot test Patty to see if she is a real creature.  We can only eliminate or confirm the possibility Patty is a man in a suit.  Thus, IF she is a man in a suit then limb ratios, footprints, and so on Must in each and every case support a man in a suit.  There cannot be a single exception to this.   

 

TV shows will often have a suit guy give some gut impression the PGF looks like a man in a suit.  To support this they throw out Concepts of a suit might work, they nearly always do so using post 1967 materials.  In fact many times it beyond the 1990's materials.   It all well and good they show some muscle suit with a stretch fur suit upon it, but seem to fail to mention 1967 had neither of these available.  

 

For Patty to be fake Each and every ancillary issue Must All support a suit.   Each and every one.  

 

I am open to the idea it could be, but the failure to show this easily to me is just a glaring alarm.

 

We can't really say, "Oh well each side can't prove their case"    The skeptic side should have an near amateur ease to prove their case.  

 

Is this fight with Captain Kirk and the Gorn really William Shatner fighting a real creature or it is a man in a suit?   

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
7 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

Those who were actually there aren't getting any younger and their memories arent getting any clearer with age, so the expiration date is debatable, before it is doomed to be inconclusive.

 

 

The PGF isn't "doomed" in any respect, starchunk. It is as relevant...intriguing...popular...unique...fascinating...studied...and realistic...today, as it was 52 years ago.

 

It's some people's brains that are "doomed" to failure....and closed-mindedness.  Enjoy yours.  :haha:

 

I'll take a more intellectual approach to the film. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

If we never put a BF on the slab and confirm it matches what we see on the film then the film will never be anymore conclusive or inconclusive of BF than it is now. 

 

If that time comes where BF is on a slab and we can match it up to the film then IMO that will finally legitimize the film as authentic.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

I do not need a body on the slab nor do I wish it ever to occur.  In my opinion, the proportions of Patty's body speak loudly enough for those who choose to listen.

Edited by wiiawiwb
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
5 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

I do not need a body on the slab nor do I wish it ever to occur.  In my opinion, the proportions of Patty's body speak loudly enough for those who choose to listen.

 

That is my thinking on the matter, also, wiiawiwb. :thumbsup:

 

Twist, and Norse....are expressing nothing more than their own lack of either mental ability....or willingness.....to accept the results of various lines of scientific analysis, that have been performed over the years.

 

As I have mentioned before.....it really isn't difficult to tell the difference between a real, unclothed creature...and a guy wearing a suit. A person wearing a suit, when seen under conditions comparable to the subject of the PGF.....is quite an obvious, and laughable sight.

(Two good examples....Bob H. wearing the Morris suit, and the Blevins "Beast".)

 

There is no such example where a 'guy in a suit' even rises to the level of 'ambiguous'.....let alone the degree of realism, of Patty.

 

 

But, with regards to the specific aspect of Patty that you mentioned...her 'body proportions'....what I consider to be the single strongest detail, is the clear lack of 'arm extensions', on the subject. Without any extension on the end on it's arms....the bending at the various joints along the arm....(the elbow, wrist and fingers)....all must be occuring at the film subject's actual skeletal joints.

 

There is no glove extension, within which to hide the subject's actual finger joints...and create a false 'bend point'. Hence, the bending of Patty's fingers must be occuring at the film subject's actual finger skeletal joints...

 

F61-F307-Finger-Bend-Rotated-AG3.gif

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

 

wiiawiwb

That is outstanding that you are convinced without real proof. I respect that as I do that there are credible individuals who share your sentiment. 

Especially, those who believe they have seen the creature. Being a man of both Science and faith I understand this. This subject is not about 

faith or belief. It is about a flesh and blood man ape. 

 

I am often ask how I can accept my faith,but not  the creature. It is really quite easy.  Of course I can't go into that. It is not allowed. 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...