-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Thoughts about Munns' Book When Roger Met Patty
- Thread starter Squatchy McSquatch
- Start date
dmaker
Graduate Poster
I wasn't banned. I asked to be deactivated.
rockinkt
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,342
The Shrike
Philosopher
You explained it well enough the first time; I'm just not convinced that the evidence supports your hypothesis.
dmaker
Graduate Poster
LOL. I know you are just being cheeky, but I did voluntarily deactivate. It's actually not something you can do in the user control panel--oddly enough. You can't just rage quit. You have to petition a staff member to deactivate your account. I just realized one day that I have nothing substantial to offer there anymore or to gain from participating there either. There is no outstanding question for me regarding bigfoot. I am completely satisfied with my conclusion that bigfoot is a social construct fueled by various level of BLAARG players.
Having said that, my only purpose there was to provide a skeptical foil to meatheads like DWA. That worked for a while, but lately the loonies have been taking over the asylum and skeptics are more and more being vilified. At least more than in the past at any rate. I failed to see any point in participating any longer. Very few there are interested in any objective or skeptical opinion. They mostly just want to sit around and ooh and ahh over dogmen and bigfoot and not have anyone pee on their parade. So fine. Not much point to sticking around any longer. Lock the doors, cancel all meds, and let delusion rule. Peeing into the wind is no longer a hobby of mine
So, ergo, I asked to have my account deleted. It seems the best the staff will do, is deactivate an account.
Last edited:
dmaker
Graduate Poster
One thing that strikes me as odd with the heel flap theory is the color of the exposed "heel". I'm a proponent of the hip wader theory. If I had to hazard a guess as to the construction of the Patty suit, I lean towards hip waders with either a modified gomorrah suit attached or some other fake fur material.
The heel that is exposed in the flap frame is of a distinctly white color. I struggle to imagine that if the attached fur costume was to be removed for whatever reason, that we would see something of that color. In other words, what hip waders exist in that color?
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,657
The BFF is a forum for Bigfoot believers. You did not belong there.
But you did not belong there.
You mean that DWA stopped believing in Bigfoot for a while? That for a while you somehow convinced him that Bigfoot doesn't exist?
It is more and more becoming what it was supposed to be the whole time - a Bigfoot believer's forum.
Last edited:
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,657
The heel is not visible in the "flap frame". The heel is completely blocked out of view by the overexposed white foreground material.
That can be a tempting theory and especially because of what Bob Heironimus said. But from his statements it's not entirely clear if what he put on were actually modified hip waders or something like hip waders.
Do you mean a modified Charlie Gemora gorilla costume? I don't recall ever hearing that idea before. Philip Morris has made the claim that it was one of his gorilla costumes which had been modified.
I have been trying to show visual evidence that the heel cannot be seen in that frame. I don't think I'm done yet.
It is certainly a possibility that actual hip waders were not used in the construction of the costume.
dmaker
Graduate Poster
Obviously you are correct. I never once thought that I could ever convince DWA that bigfoot did not exist. When I say it worked for me I mean that providing a skeptical foil to the nonsense that goes on there seemed to me to be something that perhaps had some effect on some readers of the forum. I know that previous posters such as The Shrike (aka Saskeptic) did have a very influential impact on me when I first started to read threads there. Breakthroughs with the die hards like DWA were never possible. The planet could be scorched to nothing but him and the last cinder and he would still protest that bigfoot is probably hiding behind that burnt out cedar. But for the more moderate crowd? Perhaps there was hope. I don't know. Doesn't matter now.
As far as it becoming what it was meant to be: a forum for those that believe in bigfoot? I could not agree more. And I'm content to leave them with that. No need to go there and argue with them.
Last edited:
dmaker
Graduate Poster
Of course. My interest in the PGF is fleeting at best. It looks fake to me when I see it, and that informs my opinion on the matter. Could it be something other than hip waders? Sure. I don't really care. It's an argument for those that care to delve deeper into the details than I.
Squatchy McSquatch
Thinker
D you played your role peferectly over there.
I'm taking a break too, just not going inactive. Finding the 'discussions' and the players to be beyond the pale of reason.
Re: hip waders, the description given by BobH was that it was like a hip wader or irrigation boot. All the waders I've owned were olive green, or dark brown but I've seen yellow, which could account for the light colour/overexposure we see in the film.
btw Happy Thanksgiving to my neighbours to the South!!!
Off to watch my hometown team win the Grey Cup now thank you very much. Go Tiger Cats!! Eat 'Em Raw!!
I'm taking a break too, just not going inactive. Finding the 'discussions' and the players to be beyond the pale of reason.
Re: hip waders, the description given by BobH was that it was like a hip wader or irrigation boot. All the waders I've owned were olive green, or dark brown but I've seen yellow, which could account for the light colour/overexposure we see in the film.
btw Happy Thanksgiving to my neighbours to the South!!!
Off to watch my hometown team win the Grey Cup now thank you very much. Go Tiger Cats!! Eat 'Em Raw!!
Last edited:
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
Over at an ape suit enthusiasts facebook page I asked about the bulging calf muscle. Chris Casteel offered this argument that I hadn't heard before:
"There is no way to make the film grain smaller and more defined .
The plain fact is the film is too damned blurry to see details.
This supposed calf muscle flexing has already been shown to be the leg moving behind a white branch from a fallen tree in the forground.
the branch was so out of focus it was only visible when the dark leg passed behind it.
It showed up as a light area that appears to move as the leg passes by. Search youtube.
There is nothing on this Bigfoot suit that Charles Gemora didn't already do a hundred times better in the 40s. Suits that could take an extreme closeup and looked incredibly real, unlike Patty with film grain so bad it would be like doing a life size Bigfoot out of properly colored poker chips.
It would look fine from 200 feet away, but the detail simply doesn't exist. All the hoping in the world won't make that film any more clear."
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
You guys are acting like there was no such thing as paint, or dye, or other makeup even to color the boot/hip wader theory thingy up under the fur suit that fits over it. It certainly would be an easy way to accomplish that sort of look. (especially the weird sideways looking knee thing) Hard to do that with a real knee™
Even if it were to be a custom made style hip wader, thats not really out of an ordinary persons range of skills. Much less someone that may have worked with leather making horse related items. Patterson also was some what of an artist. (some think so more than others depending on if you see this as a gaf or as a real entity....dotdotdot)
Last edited:
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Actually, we refined it down to foreground interference in our lengthy analysis at BFF... I wonder if Chris participated over there..
Last edited:
I'd have to disagree with both arguments on this one. Looking at these gifs there is not a foreground obstruction in previous frames to conclude that the "Costume splitting" frame is caused by a foreground obstruction.
On the other hand, what is being called the "Costume splitting" and then identified as beginning in other frames is actually the bare heel of the subject/costume. What I see occurring in the actual "Costume split" frame is motion blur, don't just focus on the heel area but look at the entire frame. It is covered in motion blur, Patterson is shaking during this frame. The sharp contrast between the dark fur and light heel of the rubber foot streaking over the frame is creating a weird artifact.
You can find these all over the film, remember this is a stabilization of footage that is shaking and blurring all over the place. That is how you get sweaty nutters claiming that the mouth moves and there is an inhuman arm ratio and unnatural muscle movement.
Last edited:
Squatchy McSquatch
Thinker
I appreciate the feedback and gifs and whatnot.
My squatchy time has been limited as of late.
Please keep discussing Bill Munns' proof; despite my occasional absence.
My squatchy time has been limited as of late.
Please keep discussing Bill Munns' proof; despite my occasional absence.
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
Good to see you posting wolftrax. That's an interesting theory about what could explain what we see. Without the original film, it is hard to be definitive about anything. I would disagree that this particular anomaly we're seeing in the film is an artifact though. I might have agreed if it was in just one frame, but this seems to "grow" from one frame to the next. (the size of the split/opening) However, I would submit that the bogus looking sideways knee joint, and diaper butt are probably more obvious signs of a suit. There are also other notable flaws IMHO but all of that stuff is subjective surely.
marlborough
Scholar
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 80
The diaper butt has always sounded off alarm bells for it being a costume from the first time I ever saw the PGF. And it always kills me when they claim that such a suit is impossible to reproduce today, but never offer a credible source making these assertions other than Munns and Wikipedia. Even when I was a fence sitter with leanings towards "BF is Real", the diaper butt has always been an issue. It was the show Monsterquest and the escapades of Bill Munns that knocked me off the fence onto the skeptical side.
Add the wardrobe malfunction of the right foot/ankle as another flaw diminishing the authenticity of the PGF.
On the subject of flaws, has the rear of the foot and how it extends rearward beyond to back of the ankle ever been scrutinized here?
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
Not only that, but the fact that there's images of Charles Gemora's ape-suits (featuring the very same type of "diaper" detail) that pre-date the PGF is a dead giveaway that Patty is a costume. Either Gemora was really perceptive in creating a feature than the #1 p4p Creature of Legend actually biologically has, or his own suits influenced whoever it was who made and/or modified the Patty suit.
Howie Felterbush
Bow Tie Daddy
"Paging Dr. Yeti...paging Dr. Sweaty Yeti..."
Ol' Sweaty could draw a bunch of lines on those pictures and prove it was Bigfoot.
I miss that guy...but, like marlborough, the PGF is what made me finally believe that my good buddy Bigfoot is just an imaginary friend. Just too much stuff that doesn't ring true.
Ol' Sweaty could draw a bunch of lines on those pictures and prove it was Bigfoot.
I miss that guy...but, like marlborough, the PGF is what made me finally believe that my good buddy Bigfoot is just an imaginary friend. Just too much stuff that doesn't ring true.