|
Post by Jason C. on Mar 17, 2013 14:38:11 GMT -5
Great article... Thanks Bill for posting the PDF. It was much easier to read -- and I was able to save it. There are quite a few people that say the PG film is too controversial and polarizing to be used as proof of the existence of sasquatch. I consider it to be the best piece of proof there is... There is something else that strikes me when I think of today's researchers vs. John, Rene, Patterson, etc. They didn't go into the forest bellowing and banging trees. They went in relatively quietly trying to surprise the damn thing. While clear crisp video *might* persuade some scientists. I know that a body will.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Mar 19, 2013 0:09:21 GMT -5
My only point was that when many people try to compare Patty with famous known costumes of the time. Planet of the Apes is among the most popular that they compare it to. I don't think this is correct
If you look at some of the things that the Planet of the Apes costumes had to do. They had to convey at least three different species type, gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutang Each species had to convey human like evolutionary advancement Convey facial expressions Talk Wear clothes Use tools such as firearms, whips, lasso's Ride horses, run, fight, jump Be worn by actors for hours at a time, under bright lights Be seen in clear view
If Patty was a hoax, neither the suit or the person wearing it would have to do any of those things
I just think that if you are trying to make an argument either for or against Patty being a costume, you need compare it to costumes being used under similar conditions
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Mar 19, 2013 0:25:42 GMT -5
I fail to see how that is relevant? Here he gives the formulae for how costuming is made. It is an art never veered from by Hollywood. Not from the days of the black and white talkies to Star Wars. Chewbacca had to do many things that Patty did not, as did Harry and King Cong yet the 'faults' in costuming remains consistent.And the simplicity of Patty's short walk could never be imitated by any of these costumed characters. Apples and oranges? No! How to spot fake fruit, from real fruit? Possibly.... The problem may also be the use of Hollywood costumes It has been showed on more than one occasion that sometimes "experts" over complicate things that lay people do not. A classic example was shown in an experiment by Paul Romer (sp?) back in the 1980's He was studying how some Egyptian monuments were built. He had a number of engineers and architects tell him that there was no way for them to build his test wall level without the use of modern equipment such as a transit. He found the solution nearby as some local builders stated they could do it. They simply built a small ditch along where the wall was to be built, in one spot they stuck a stick in it with a notch. They then filled the ditch until it touched the notch, knowing that the surface of the water was level they used a string with a knot placed at the appropriate distance As long as the water touched the notch, they had a constant level to measure from If stories of Patterson are correct, it appears that he was a talented craftsman that may have constructed a costume in a simple but non-hollywood style.
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Mar 19, 2013 18:10:08 GMT -5
I personally do not believe that for a minute! Especially in regard to many talks I have had with Bob Gimlin on the subject of Bluff Creek, and his knowledge of Patterson. And no matter how you cut it..that costume [ if there was such] is not simple
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Mar 29, 2013 17:42:38 GMT -5
Gerry either you missed my point or I didn't explain myself properly. I never said that Patty was a costume or that it was simple. My point was and is that in this article and others, when they try. To compare suits from various movies or tv shows to Patty to prove that Patty is not a costume they are using examples of suits that would have to do many more things then if Patty was a suit
Y
|
|
Sheldon
Has opinions now!
Posts: 103
|
Post by Sheldon on Apr 14, 2014 23:43:18 GMT -5
That was a good read and thanks for the share Gerry!
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Apr 17, 2014 11:50:31 GMT -5
Gerry either you missed my point or I didn't explain myself properly. I never said that Patty was a costume or that it was simple. My point was and is that in this article and others, when they try. To compare suits from various movies or tv shows to Patty to prove that Patty is not a costume they are using examples of suits that would have to do many more things then if Patty was a suit I certainly have not seen any suits of that era that demonstrated the characteristics of Patty. But it even goes well beyond that. I have yet to see a costume that allows a man the freedom to step up a 3' high bank in one step. Nor have I seen a costume that allows the maker to leave prints far deeper in a sandbar that other men could not come close to doing. Then there is a costume needed from that era that allows the subject to demonstrate upward toe flex-ion and toe movement between footprints. Below is some frames showing the upward toe flex-ion in the right foot, as well as the mid-tarsal hinging point of the subjects left foot that matched the mid-tarsal ridge break seen in many of the prints. These things are all part of the suit making process and I have yet to hear a rational explanation how this was accomplished in 1967.
|
|
|
Post by Jason C. on Apr 17, 2014 23:09:17 GMT -5
Bill who took this footprint photo and where? Is this from the PG site? Aloha, Jason
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Apr 18, 2014 14:03:28 GMT -5
Bill who took this footprint photo and where? Is this from the PG site? Aloha, Jason Lyle Laverty - PGF site - Monday - Oct 23, 1967
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Apr 19, 2014 13:07:41 GMT -5
Jason - here is a sandbar print that Roger filmed that also shows the mid-tarsal break. Like with the creature seen in the film - the foot appears to hinge just in front of the ankle. The same occurred in this BCM track where the foot appears to have cupped which allowed the foot to make contact with the heel - to then roll onto the ball of the foot without pressing the soil in the mid-foot area. Another BCM track where the heel didn't touch the ground, but the mid-foot forward did.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Apr 19, 2014 22:19:12 GMT -5
Gerry either you missed my point or I didn't explain myself properly. I never said that Patty was a costume or that it was simple. My point was and is that in this article and others, when they try. To compare suits from various movies or tv shows to Patty to prove that Patty is not a costume they are using examples of suits that would have to do many more things then if Patty was a suit I certainly have not seen any suits of that era that demonstrated the characteristics of Patty. But it even goes well beyond that. I have yet to see a costume that allows a man the freedom to step up a 3' high bank in one step. Nor have I seen a costume that allows the maker to leave prints far deeper in a sandbar that other men could not come close to doing. Then there is a costume needed from that era that allows the subject to demonstrate upward toe flex-ion and toe movement between footprints. Below is some frames showing the upward toe flex-ion in the right foot, as well as the mid-tarsal hinging point of the subjects left foot that matched the mid-tarsal ridge break seen in many of the prints. These things are all part of the suit making process and I have yet to hear a rational explanation how this was accomplished in 1967. I didn't realize that you had a version of the PGF That showed Patty leaving those footprints or stepping over a 3 foot high bank (close to waist high if she was 6 to 7 feet tall)
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Apr 20, 2014 0:41:25 GMT -5
[/quote]I didn't realize that you had a version of the PGF That showed Patty leaving those footprints or stepping over a 3 foot high bank (close to waist high if she was 6 to 7 feet tall) [/quote] I did not say that I had such a film .... if I did write that, then please point it out to me and I will retract it. What I relied upon was several independent eye witnesses who described where the creature was first seen when Roger and Bob encountered it. These eye witnesses had either seen the creature itself at the creek or had seen her footprints and described her clearing the 3' high bank in one step. What I relied on was that while I cannot see the actual footprint being made in the PGF, I can see the creature walking across a sandbar. I can surmise that the subject had little choice but to leave tracks as Gimlin, Roger, Laverty and so on left their tracks in the sand. I can also see the heel of the creature coming off the ground at a time when most of the foot is still in contact with the substrate. That hinging of the foot appears to match the same hinging location found in some of the tracks. I had considered the theories that some die-hard skeptics had once proposed whereas Roger had hand-dug the trackway (presumably with the artistic talent of a master sculptor), and/or had pounded fake feet deep into the packed sand with a hammer/malot, but I found those scenarios totally asinine and little more than throwing crap at a wall in hopes something might stick. In each instance it took a matter of minutes to see the lack of forethought that had gone into such scenarios. Below is the better of two sculptures of a Bigfoot that Roger had done. A master sculptor Roger was not. Bigfoot Times - Danny Perez - page 22 - Laverty reflected 25 years after the film was taken that he walked next to the tracks of the creature and could not come anywhere close to sinking to that kind of depth. If someone wants to go look for it, Steenburg cited me statements by Laverty which I posted on the BFF. One such statement Laverty made was that when he came upon the film site that there had not been any signs of a rehearsal and the tracks of everyone there supported Roger and Gimlin's accounting of the encounter.
|
|
|
Post by Jason C. on Apr 22, 2014 15:04:45 GMT -5
Jason - here is a sandbar print that Roger filmed that also shows the mid-tarsal break. Like with the creature seen in the film - the foot appears to hinge just in front of the ankle. The same occurred in this BCM track where the foot appears to have cupped which allowed the foot to make contact with the heel - to then roll onto the ball of the foot without pressing the soil in the mid-foot area. Another BCM track where the heel didn't touch the ground, but the mid-foot forward did. I had never seen those photos or the gif animations before. Great stuff! It makes it blatantly obvious why there has to be a ridge in the middle of footprints to correspond with the mid-tarsal bones of the foot.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Apr 23, 2014 23:44:02 GMT -5
I certainly have not seen any suits of that era that demonstrated the characteristics of Patty. But it even goes well beyond that. I have yet to see a costume that allows a man the freedom to step up a 3' high bank in one step. Nor have I seen a costume that allows the maker to leave prints far deeper in a sandbar that other men could not come close to doing. If this 3' high step is not shown in the PGF then it is not the fact that you try to present it here as, but your opinion that the figure in the film made those tracks We know of more than one hoaxers that made fake tracks in addition to fake pictures/video If the PGF clearly shows the creature making those tracks and/or a step of approximately 1/2 it's height then I would agree with you If the PGF doesn't show that then you are speculating here, which is now different than someone making speculation on reasons for the PGF being a hoax Now forgive me if I am wrong here But I recall Thomas mentioning a set of tracks that he feels may be real, but he can't classify them as that because they are associated with a known hoaxers (sorry I can't remember the name) So in the case of the PGF we have 4 possible scenarios 1) The film and tracks are real 2) The film and tracks are a hoax 3) The film is fake and the tracks are real (I don't know if anyone thinks this) 4) The film is real and the tracks are fakes (see #3) Bill you are clearly in group #1 and have spent a great deal of time and effort studying the PGF And believe it or not I do enjoy most of the factual information you post However if you quote one of my comments and you express your opinion as if it is fact, then prove it
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Apr 27, 2014 23:53:06 GMT -5
I know of three witnesses who saw evidence of the creature stepping up a 3' high bank. Richard Henry told Perez that he saw the creatures tracks and where it cleared a 3' high bank in one step.
Faking tracks is not hard to do - its faking tracks that can hold up to scrutiny is where the difference lay. I have heard nutty theories from all one would need to do is carry 100s of pounds on their back to Roger hand digging the entire trackway so to make the track-maker look extremely heavy. If you have a logical explanation as to how the tracks were faked, then I'd be happy to hear it.
Seems logical.
|
|