Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

What Makes Patty Real/or Fake

Recommended Posts

Guest

I know we have several threads essentially in this vain but I am hoping this will be different: If there was ONE thing you could cite that makes you lean towards either fake or real what would that be. Personally I could cite something for both cases because I am not 100% in the REAL camp but I will start with something that is significant to me for the real side.

Roger said he ran, leaped over the creek while attempting to film Patty..this as far as I can see is quite clear in the footage as I have studied it, with help from Sweaty, that he clearly is running, jumping and so on trying to catch up to Patty until the film becomes more stable as we see just before the look-back. This totally squares with what Roger and Gimlin claimed as opposed to what BH claimed with the supposed intentional shaking of the camera and all of that..this to me lends more to the credence of the film's authenticity then anything else.

Thoughts..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Good point. What struck me the first time I saw the film (on a big screen in a theater) was the absolutely natural, fluid movement of the figure. It's never looked like a man in a suit to me - still doesn't.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I see a creature whose movements are adapted to its mountainous environment. That is personally the kicker for me. My frame of reference, oddly enough, is the gait of my own father. A man who grew up as a member of the last generation of true native log-cabin type mountain folk here in VA, I see much of my own father's gait, so suited and adapted to moving through his native mountains, in Patty's gait. I know it is odd, but that personal frame of reference has caused me to think that (on top of the many other things that have been argued that favors the authenticity of Patty) the creature is the real deal. I have argued with myself the possibility of the actor in the suit being a similarly adapted person, comfortable moving in such terrain. After throwing a suit (where is the suit? THAT suit came out of the same time period as Planet of the Apes??) on top of that hypothetical person, I find myself thinking that said suit would ruin the naturalness of the movement, leading me to dismiss the idea of said "mountain" person in a suit. It is all very unscientific and subjective, I admit, but...it is the clencher for me. Oh yeah, and the boobs, with what appears to be stretching underarm skin :-) And the way the leg muscles seem to move and ripple with each step. And the corroborating lifelike tracks/trackway. And...the list goes on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good point. What struck me the first time I saw the film (on a big screen in a theater) was the absolutely natural, fluid movement of the figure. It's never looked like a man in a suit to me - still doesn't.

Lu - I agree, the same here. I saw in the theater back in the early 70s and thought the same thing. But as they say the devil is in the details and for me the detail of the action i see at the beginning seems completely uncontrived and not consisitent with the BH testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

I agree also. Her natural looking gate and fluidity was most convincing to me. The footprint evidence and all the people investigating the site also strongly contributes. The stories of P@G match what is in the film.

I am not worried about the timeline because filming a bigfoot would be a big deal and off time developing or whatever for such a spectacular find wouldn't be surprising. Having minor discrepancies in stories like Sanderson probably misinterpreting Roger saying they tracked her three miles isn't particularly damning. It just makes no sense for him to actually have meant to say that. It was clearly not part of some story because that isn't what he and Gimlin said afterwords. That is the distance from camp so Roger was probably answering some question that wasn't asked or something like that. Nothing about it really doesn't add up in my opinion. I find it hard to believe that a hoax could have accomplished that. Skeptical arguments like the timeline would have been obvious at the time and there were plenty looking to debunk it. They don't carry much weight anymore since they probably can't be proven. It is just grasping at straws as far as I am concerned.

Edited by BobZenor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

The improbable combinations of various primates we see in Patty. If I were to call her anything I'd call her an upright gorilla. Yes Patty is strange but the strangeness adds up to a unique realness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

It was done in one take.... That's manditory if it's real, impossible if it's not. JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spader

For me the kicker has always been the fluidity of the gait, too smooth and graceful for someone in a suit. I was a pitcher in college and did lots of drills for body control. Recently I was watching some old video tape of myself and instantly noticed how UNATURAL I looked walking, there was no gracefulness or fluidity in my gate. The other thing that I vote for a F/B are the boobs. I don't care how good a costume maker is but they just look to natural, you would think a hoaxer would leave that detail out, to hard to duplicate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

Just today at lunch my son and I listed 17 . I'll try to restain myself..

1.the aformentioned gait.

2.calf muscle flexing/ankles

3.boobs move

4.football helmets (Bob H) don't have sagital crests. (my 8 year old son's point)

5.running water in Bluff Creek unlike Bob H's story.

6.Mouth moves

7.All of the mock ups with guys in suits look like guys in suits

8.Roger P couldn't have prepared for 40 years of scrutiny and digital enhancement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

The top reason, for me, is the mouth/facial movement I've seen, in a couple of Frames which I haven't posted here, yet. But that detail still needs to be verified, by checking to see if it exists in another high-quality copy of the Film.

If that, somehow, turned out not to be legit....then the strongest reason, for me, would be a three-way tie, between....calf muscle movement....quadracep movement....and an 'arm proportion' that is proportioned the exact opposite of an 'average human w/lower-arm extension'. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

When I look at the filmed subject, I see a real animal. It really is quite that simple. Everythin' about it from it's unique structure, its mass an its movements all appear perfectly natural an real in my opinion. In all honesty, I still get lost in the film when I just sit an watch it play over an over, what a incredibly magnificant animal. Incredible !

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Forbig

post-987-088139400 1314998298_thumb.jpg

This skeleton comparison on the left to make Patty look fake proves her real.

Patty's foot is pretty close to the skeletons size that's 14 and 1/2 inches from the tracks she left even if it was a man in a costume. In order for this average proportioned skeleton to fit into Patty like it does they had to scale it so it has 14 and 1/2 inch feet. Now since this skeleton is the equivalent of a 6 foot tall human with 10 inch feet they had to make it 8.7 feet tall to get it to fill the 14 and 1/2 inch shoes. To our suprise the skeletal frame still fills in all over the rest of the body.

If it was a real costume when the skeleton was scaled to be the same size we would notice tiny skeleton feet inside big fake Bigfoot feet but everything else would be a match. This didn't happen, so this tells us that Patty is close to 9 feet tall and Bob Heironimus was only 6 feet tall!

Edited by Forbig
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

I have a cast of Patty's foot. I'm 6'6' and reasonably athletic with a size 14 foot. There is NO WAY I could replicate her movement with something that size on my foot!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

look at the pics of BH in 1967. not what you would call a extra big muscle-man. then try to pad him out in a suit to fit!. so I side on the we did film a subject. until that's refuted, I keep a open mind. (but not on BH being the man in a suit claim).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spader

I'm 6"2 and wear a size 15, and can barely replicate normal human locomotion.LOL

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...