Jump to content
xspider1

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax

Recommended Posts

xspider1

No wonder that suit looks like a perfect match for the Bigfoot seen in the PGF! 8 p

From that angle I think it is a remarkably good comparison... Their opinions are not less valid than xspider's, right?

I don't have to make an unnecessarily personal comment to express the unequivocal fact that the two images seen above do not compare favorably for the skeptics. Deciding which opinion is more valid is one of those things that we, as human beings, can do for ourselves on an individual basis.

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

Natural hair grows in swirls and patterns, it reflects light in swirls and patterns. The natural lay and natural reflection of light from Patty's hair has not been reproduced IMO. There is a reflection off of the skin underneath the hair that might be impossible to accomplish without the help of CG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

You make a very good point, Indie. To me, there are many, many things about the Creature seen in the PGF that have not been duplicated. Others look at it and they immediately 'know' it is a suit and many of those consider it to be a bad suit at that. I was never 'all-knowing' that way, it must be nice.

Part of the problem, I think, is that people don't generally understand how difficult it would be to make a suit that looks like Patty. I wish everyone could buy a Morris gorilla suit, get 'em some hip waders, an old football helmet and some shoulder pads then give it a whirl. I can't fully explain it but; I know that if everyone in the world did exactly that, we would still have exactly zero Bigfoot suits that look as convincing as Ms. Patty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBFRPKY

xspider1, I wonder, with all those parts that were supposedly football eqipment used to make up the Patty suit, has anyone ever questioned the local high school coach from that time? If Patterson used football gear, I don't think you could go down to the corner store and buy shoulder pads. I know at my old school, they had to order the football gear. So, if that avenue is the one skeptics have chosen to beleive, how many have interviewed the local school football coach? Did he know Patterson? Did Patterson ever receive any football equipment from him or ask where to get it? I sure don't remember anything of that sort coming up anywhere. It could support the case for those that believe it's a hoax or it could support the case that Patty was a biological unknown living creature. Chris B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

That's a good idea, Chris. I doubt that the skeptics would report their findings unless somebody suddenly came forward and said: "Oh yea, I forgot to mention that Roger got a football uniform from me. He wouldn't say what it was for and, you know me, I don't ask questions." This thing gets funny sometimes but at least that's better than it being sad or mean spirited. : )

Agreed, Roger did a great job!

Nice try Fuzzy but, I said: "we would still have exactly zero Bigfoot suits that look as convincing as Ms. Patty." Get it? Not 1 suit, zero suits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

wheres-the-beef.jpg

Where's the suit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
I don't have to make an unnecessarily personal comment to express the unequivocal fact that the two images seen above do not compare favorably for the skeptics. Deciding which opinion is more valid is one of those things that we, as human beings, can do for ourselves on an individual basis.

It is neither unequivocal nor a fact. Allow me to equivocate. The two images do not compare favourably for the skeptics?

If that is an unequivocal fact, then why is it comparing very favourably for the following skeptic?...

Wow! Thanks Kit! Blevins did a much better job than I initially gave him credit for. Did he use a Morris suit in its construction? If so, this just might win me over (although I'd still want the foot test to be done)...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6221680#post6221680

If your statement is indeed a fact and an unequivocal one at that, how is it that I could so easily show it to be neither?

The actual unequivocal fact, and with complete clarity, is that the two images compare very favourably for some people, and for others they do not. It's a matter of subjectivity. That, I say, is a fact proven by the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

wheres-the-beef.jpg

Where's the suit?

Q: If I knew, by what possible rational reason would I go ahead and clack out an answer for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The Blevins suit is too wide in the butt and the bottom of the foot we're seeing in this frame looks like its been touched up because the edge line of it looks too sharp.

On my screen both the Blevins suit and Patty measure exactly 4.1 cm in height. The butts of both subjects measure exactly 1.5 cm in width. In light of these numbers, how does your subjective claim that the Blevins suit butt is too wide compare to objective numerical measurements showing they are the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

On my screen both the Blevins suit and Patty measure exactly 4.1 cm in height. The butts of both subjects measure exactly 1.5 cm in width. In light of these numbers, how does your subjective claim that the Blevins suit butt is too wide compare to objective numerical measurements showing they are the same?

Nothing wrong with the heights. The Blevins suit is giving the appearance of being somewhat pear shaped. I'm still wondering about the crispness of the foot outline given that the rest of the frame is kind of blurry and hazy. Also Blevins arms are angled out the way one would expect a padded up human to look in a padded up suit. Patty it seems has more vertical hanging arms which indicates a more natural configuration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

1) Yes, nothing is wrong with the heights. They are the same. The width of the butts is the same, too. The Blevins butt measurement shows it is not wider, yes?

2) Nothing else in the Blevins image is the colour of the bottom of the foot. There are, of course, images overexposed where Patty's foot looks messed up, as well.

3) Your subjective ideas of what is natural don't really help me as much when what are very unnatural things to me are not addressed. I can go on Peopleofwalmart and show you angled out arms. I can do the same with the PGF. Can you find me some apes with crazy sternums that project like football shoulder pads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBFRPKY

post-137-019772300 1287365871_thumb.jpg

This is a pic of a Gorilla climbing, or is it?

1. Notice the obvious difference in size of the shoulder compared to the arm. Clearly this must be due to football shoulder pads being used here.

2. An obvious sign, this must be a 2 piece suit we're looking at in the pic. Indicating an upper part and pants hip waders combo for the lower.

3. Obvious folds from the hip waders section of the lower.

So in fact this must be a man in a suit. Or is it?

Chris B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Oops. I learn a lot here. That last post reminds me that it is generally a good idea for one to be very careful what they ask for.

(Edited cuz i can't spell real good all the time, especially with words that just don't cooperate)

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

If your statement is indeed a fact and an unequivocal one at that, how is it that I could so easily show it to be neither?

I think that is because, in your mind, you have already shown and proven everything that your heart desires. Unfortunately for you, the real world doesn't revolve based on sucker punches and innuendo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...