Jump to content

One Seriously Suspicious Frame


smokingdino
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Incorrigible1 said:

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

 

For several simple reasons:

 

1. If you shrug the film off as a hoax, why would you feel compelled to reproduce the suit? For what purpose?

2. The film is of such low resolution, any recreation -- even an excellent one -- would still be dismissed by the believers as not being "accurate."

3. To reproduce the suit, the debunker would have to construct a suit from materials that are unknown and then film it in exactly the same manner the original film was shot and then make a copy of a copy of a copy of it. And then destroy the original or claim that it's been "lost."

4. If someone shows me a photo of, say, a flying saucer and I look at it and conclude that it looks fake, am I required to then "reproduce" the fake photo or the fake UFO prop to "prove" that the image is fake?

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

2 hours ago, smokingdino said:

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

 

Agreed. Sounds like you're willing to at least accept that the sand was darker? But, granted, still not darker than the subject's hair. Many individual things have been brought up in many attempts to argue man inna suit. But when taken as a whole, because that's where the truth lies. ALL of the cherry picked arguments fail. Arm segment arguments  fail against a 90 degree leg lift. Arguments against the 90 degree leg lift fail because of shoulder width. Arguments against shoulder width fail against calf musculature and the list goes on and on when taking any detail out of context of the whole picture- including rodeo boys designing and deploying a costume. That fails against both motion, musculature, and available materials at that point in time. One other interesting detail? The firm, solid muscle ripple in the right thigh when the subject plants its foot at around frame 354 when facing the camera. Only by taking the subject as a whole can anything like true assessment of details be made.

 

Not saying you don't have as much right to question things and anybody else. Only saying that what you're bringing to the table isn't new and your reasons aren't new either. But it can also be said that, even if the subject in the PGF is a real creature, It doesn't mean a similar creature would exist today. The goal of many here is in determining that point by whatever means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, smokingdino said:

 

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.

Actually the bottom of an ape's foot is lighter than the hair color and skin color on the rest of the body. How convenient that you picked a black and white photograph. 

https://images.app.goo.gl/mcQficDew5v5vvRX6

 

Edited by Wooly Booger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

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

 

It sure isn't for lack of trying, Inc1. Whether the attempts were done by someone who was a proponent or not. That "suit" could not be made with the materials available in 1967. Heck look at the suits created by film makers and those who would debunk Patty. It just hasn't happened. And even if someone could replicate the suit in this modern age, I guarantee they would admit that it couldn't have been done in 1967 by two inexperienced people. Hollywood and Disney at the time said no way could they do it and those two tried and true industries had the best primate suit makers in the biz. But I somehow don't think our "smokingdino" buddy would understand that. Prolly just move on to some other "eye-popping" revelatory detail to strafe the Forum with ;) I'm kinda done here....

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

How convenient that you picked a black and white photograph. 

 

ape footUnavailable

 

Color:

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSCS_8EeQ8g0iFlEfMVnY4

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 I guarantee they would admit that it couldn't have been done in 1967 by two inexperienced people.

 

Patterson and Gimlin could have simply hired someone to make the suit. They didn't have to make it themselves.

 

Quote

Hollywood and Disney at the time said no way could they do it...

 

There are many Hollywood experts that say it's a guy in a suit.

Edited by smokingdino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, smokingdino said:

 

Color:

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSCS_8EeQ8g0iFlEfMVnY4

 

 

 

 

Patterson and Gimlin could have simply hired someone to make the suit. They didn't have to make it themselves.

 

 

There a many Hollywood experts that say it's a guy in a suit.

It's still lighter than the skin on the face and body. Apes also have variations in skin color. Compare a chimpanzee with a gorilla for instance. 

 

There are even variations of skin tone among members of the same species. Some gorillas have lighter foot color while others have darker. This is really a non-issue. 

Edited by Wooly Booger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

 

And I care that you have dismissed something perfectly plausible why?

 

Fun fact: Does wet sand stick to the bottom of feet? YES.

 

Apply science. Go find some wet sand and take off your shoes and walk in the substrate. Results? What color is the sand? What color does it turn the bottom of your feet?

 

What was the substrate Patty was walking in? And what color was it?


 

28FC1774-0025-4676-ACAF-8BAB6812362D.jpeg

9FD361D1-8412-47C8-99D5-1FC95AF18C99.jpeg

9981495D-930A-4A33-91AF-C97E6391B7E6.webp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

It's still lighter than the skin on the face and body. Apes also have variations in skin color. Compare a chimpanzee with a gorilla for instance. 

 

 

A good video of various apes walking. Slow the video down to .25 and pay close attention to the bottoms of the feet. A creature walking through the woods that doesn't regularly shower would logically have very dirty feet. That the PGF subject's feet are so white is extremely suspicious, if you think about it objectively:
 

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smokingdino said:

 

For several simple reasons:

 

1. If you shrug the film off as a hoax, why would you feel compelled to reproduce the suit? For what purpose?

2. The film is of such low resolution, any recreation -- even an excellent one -- would still be dismissed by the believers as not being "accurate."

3. To reproduce the suit, the debunker would have to construct a suit from materials that are unknown and then film it in exactly the same manner the original film was shot and then make a copy of a copy of a copy of it. And then destroy the original or claim that it's been "lost."

4. If someone shows me a photo of, say, a flying saucer and I look at it and conclude that it looks fake, am I required to then "reproduce" the fake photo or the fake UFO prop to "prove" that the image is fake?


That sounds horribly unscientific.

 

So basically hardcore skeptics are “believers”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smokingdino said:

 

A good video of various apes walking. Slow the video down to .25 and pay close attention to the bottoms of the feet. A creature walking through the woods that doesn't regularly shower would logically have very dirty feet. That the PGF subject's feet are so white is extremely suspicious, if you think about it objectively:
 

 

 

Go to the thread Moonface posted on the previous page. Our resident PGF expert @Bill explains the light colored foot perfectly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, smokingdino said:

 

A good video of various apes walking. Slow the video down to .25 and pay close attention to the bottoms of the feet. A creature walking through the woods that doesn't regularly shower would logically have very dirty feet. That the PGF subject's feet are so white is extremely suspicious, if you think about it objectively:
 

 

 


When I come back from the river I love to slide my feet in my lawn to get the sand off....

 

Do you live in concrete jungle somewhere?

 

Your making my point for me. Patty had “DIRTY” feet. Except the dirt was in fact white sand. 
 

If she had been panning for gold in black sand? Guess what color her feet would have been?

 

How is this logic escaping you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, norseman said:


Except the dirt was in fact white sand. 

 

Was it? I thought the prevailing theory was the brightness is a product of film duplication?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smokingdino said:

 

Was it? I thought the prevailing theory was the brightness is a product of film duplication?


What does a camera have to do with geology?
 

What color is the sand on the Klamath river? Of which Bluff creek is a tributary. Look at the Patty footprints I posted above.... what is the substrate? River boulders? Gravel? Sand?

 

If your a placer miner looking for gold in a crick? What color sand are you looking for? Black sand. It contrasts WELL with the predominant white sand.

 

If you walk around that excavator with no boots on? What color are the bottom of your feet gonna be? Which will be a general rule of thumb for most rivers in the western US.........

 

 

13149ED7-7EB5-4974-A5B6-99E66FF4C613.jpeg

4 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

He's counting coup.


Like someone who falls out of a tree and hits every branch on the down....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, norseman said:


What does a camera have to do with geology?

 

 

Kodak assumed the camera original would be shown by users. So when you copy it, the contrast increases on the first gen copy. If you copy a first, the second gen copy is even more contrasted, light tones becoming lighter, dark tone becoming darker. And just about every video shown from the film is derived from a second gen copy. So we are seeing the feet lighter than they actually were in real life.

 

- Bill Munns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...