Jump to content

One Seriously Suspicious Frame


smokingdino
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey, Bill! How are you? Could you post the photo of the bottom of Patty's left foot that shows the real color of the sand at Bluff Creek along with her toe definition? I've been searching for it without success and would very much like to see it again for our new resident Troll's edification ;) Unless of course you would rather not accommodate certain closed mindsets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, smokingdino said:

97920945eb91f90958caad130bf6bef0-full.jp

 

I'm posting this image for serious discussion and for me to make my own observations.

 

I added the red and pink arrows.

 

Red arrow is pointing at a suspicious line across the back of the subject. This line strikes the very spot where a pullover shirt-type costume top would end. 


Creature Hollywood guy -Chris Walas was a member of the BFF (and felt Patty was a man in a suit)  However, he felt your observation on this line is wrong.   He did not propose a suit line there or ever said such a type was used.  Mark that down as one highly skilled effects skeptic who still disagrees with your pullover theory/ line.  Might be time to re-evaluate what you think you are seeing since even Walas doesn’t agree.

 

 

BTW, such lines can easily been observed in Apes in real life.   We should expect to see them.   

 

 

  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, smokingdino said:

.

 

Pink arrow is pointing at the perfectly white foot. Looks an awful lot like one of Patterson's plaster casts attached to the bottom of the costume shoe. This would serve three purposes: 1) Prevent the foot from being "floppy" 2) Create the necessary foot with toes shape and 3) Actually make footprints in the soil precisely where the subject walked.

 

And the bottom of the foot is too white to be real.

 

Thoughts?


my thoughts are Thats Crazy.

 

 

the foot is not rigid which is clear on the video.   I would love to see an example of a person walking on plaster feet esp one sewn into a costume.  Furthermore the footprints are all somewhat different.   This could not be if there was some rigid fake foot even one created by a mad scientist expert of plaster feet Crocs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I ran across that thread and just now did a screen capture of the left foot which shows the heel and toes details and true color but I know somewhere there's a much better closer image of that same foot. But this is what smokingdino should be researching instead of coming here cherry picking pot shots at the Forum:

 

99214666_PattysFoot.JPG.2942cad282da4696565ca73c8cc8572f.JPG

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1). Ape feet are smooth light grey/ flesh vs the dark hairy ape body

 

2) sand and dirt sticks to your feet when walking on it

 

3) the soil at bluff creek was grey

 

4) Patty’s feet seem to be grey vs her dark rest of her feet/legs.

 

 

Why is this an issue???  Seems like a nothing concern.

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

1). Ape feet are smooth light grey/ flesh vs the dark hairy ape body

 

2) sand and dirt sticks to your feet when walking on it

 

3) the soil at bluff creek was grey

 

4) Patty’s feet seem to be grey vs her dark rest of her feet/legs.

 

 

Why is this an issue???  Seems like a nothing concern.

 

Walk across, say, the white sands of a beach and then look at the bottom of your foot. It will not look anywhere near like this even coating we see here.

 

The dirt-on-the-feet is just ad hoc reasoning.

 

The best theory -- although still not satisfactory -- is Bill's explanation of the contrast change during the film duplication.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

 

Walk across, say, the white sands of a beach and then look at the bottom of your foot. It will not look anywhere near like this even coating we see here.

 

The dirt-on-the-feet is just ad hoc reasoning.

 

The best theory -- although still not satisfactory -- is Bill's explanation of the contrast change during the film duplication.

An even coating... on what likely paler skin... covered in white sand...shot from a distance...using 1960s film technology... viewed on a piece of film that has been duplicated multiple times.

 

At this point, you are just going to cherry pick your points and ignore others.  This isn't a discussion or debate... it's basically you using the forum as a soapbox to post weak, poorly thought out 'gotchas' and troll the forum.  You are not open to even the remotest of possibilities that the PGF film is authentic.  Which means that you are just here for laughs.

 

The rest of you can feed the troll if you want.  He wants interaction.  I am not giving him anymore.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

An even coating... on what likely paler skin... covered in white sand...shot from a distance...using 1960s film technology... viewed on a piece of film that has been duplicated multiple times.

 

 

The bottoms of the feet are bright white, but the palms are darker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

 

The bottoms of the feet are bright white, but the palms are darker?


Are the palms walking in white sand?🧐

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, norseman said:


Are the palms walking in white sand?🧐

 

I've dismissed the sand theory as ad hoc reasoning.

 

A better theory, as I mentioned, was Bill's film contrast theory. But if that were the case, I would expect the palms to also be bright white.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

If only this forum had a member who was versed in the creation of special effects and making monster suits (and the make-up needed for the face) who was intimately familiar with the techniques and materials available in the 1960s who could tell us if making this suit was even remotely possible.

 

Now what of all the other Hollywood effects experts who've dismissed the film as a guy in a suit?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

 

I've dismissed the sand theory as ad hoc reasoning.

 

A better theory, as I mentioned, was Bill's film contrast theory. But if that were the case, I would expect the palms to also be bright white.

It has already been determined that the bottom of an ape's foot is light grey. Combine that with sand from the soil and that explains the foot color. 

 

Come on, surely you have more well thought out strawmen in your troll tool box. 

1 minute ago, smokingdino said:

 

Now what of all the other Hollywood effects experts who've dismissed the film as a guy in a suit?

You mean the ones who dismissed it as a man in a suit and still couldn't replicate the film subject? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

It has already been determined that the bottom of an ape's foot is light grey. Combine that with sand from the soil and that explains the foot color. 

 

 

It depends on the ape, I suppose.

 

gorilla-foot-cynthia-guinn.jpg

 

 

Again, notice the organic details here -- the folds, the wrinkles, the creases. The bottoms of the film subject's feet are perfectly white and flat.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

 

Now what of all the other Hollywood effects experts who've dismissed the film as a guy in a suit?

Why haven't they produced a suit that duplicates the features seen in the PGF film, especially using materials that were available in 1967?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...