Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[dmaker]

Here's another view, without my fingers. The preceding frames show her first walking normally, then beginning to bend, supporting the authenticity of the final bent-over frames. This frame and the next ones are a bit blurred, but not too badly. Gimlin said she fell to her elbows.

[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20Patty%20Bending/MKDEndwalk1_zps2ef51977.png[/qimg]

There is absolutely nothing discernible in that image at all.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

BTW, In a previous comment I wrote:




I found another quote that supports my interpretation that Patterson wasn’t a saddle maker.



I suspect that he was referring to Patterson’s saddle-conversion job. So Long’s comments are unsupported by the evidence so far.

But Roger was a creative guy. He was a Bigfoot hoaxer. And he was in the middle of making a Bigfoot movie, which would require a suit.

To see that Roger had talent, all we need to do is look at the stuff he sculpted, such as the Bigfoot bust he did.

To modify a Patty suit, you don't need to be a saddle-maker. You need to be a creative guy who's into pulling pranks for pay-offs. You can check Patterson down for each of those.

 

[dmaker]

I do have to confess to an ignorance to the significance of any perceived bending in the filmed PGF subject. IOW, who cares, and why does it matter? Costumes bend, this is not news.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

So Long’s comments are unsupported by the evidence so far.

As are any comments regarding Patty being bent over in any of the images that have been presented.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I do have to confess to an ignorance to the significance of any perceived bending in the filmed PGF subject. IOW, who cares, and why does it matter? Costumes bend, this is not news.

IIRC, it's in relation to what was described by P&G regarding Patty being bent over by the creek.

That must've been the moment that Bob H was shafted out of his grand!

 

[Roger Knights]

Let's not play a game of Silly Buggers here, though, we already know that measuring bits and bobs of the figure in any of those frames is a fools errand.

ISF may have so decreed, but I’m not bound to accept its ukase. I think what one should do is weigh the evidence appropriately, according to its degree of iffyness, not discard it.

The frame that you have in your PhotoBucket account with the supposed finger-flexing is a great example of how pointless a task it is.

I have no frame devoted to finger bending in my PhotoBucket account. PhotoBucket has an image bank devoted to Bigfoot; maybe you found it there.
Incidentally, M.K. Davis showed me, many years ago, a pair of consecutive frames in the final walk phase in which all the right-hand fingers shift from handing down to a 90-degree bend. I think that’s better evidence than the ambiguous pair of frames in the second walk phase.

But if we are to humour ourselves with any analysis, then we could ask why Patty seems to be wearing a diaper beneath her fur which is strikingly similar to Gemora's ape-suit butt-pads.

Maybe that’s the frame(s) we should distrust, not the ones I’ve shown, eh?

 

[GT/CS]

First, a minor point: The word “slouch” is not used in Heironimus’s description in Long’s book, or in any of his transcribed interviews. Here’s what Heironimus said Patterson said: “Crouch down a little bit more like a gorilla.” (TMoB, p. 346)

But Patty’s normal forward bend in walking, 20 degrees at the back of the torso and 35 degrees at the back of the neck, is much exceeded in these frames. My guess is that the back is bent 75 degrees or more. It’s plainly in that ballpark. PS: If she's not bending, where's the rest of her?

You're arguing about slouch vs. crouch? Really???

Has anyone seen Roger and Sweaty in the same place at the same time?

 

[Roger Knights]

I do have to confess to an ignorance to the significance of any perceived bending in the filmed PGF subject. IOW, who cares, and why does it matter? Costumes bend, this is not news.

See Parcher's comment #3090 on page 78, to which I was responding. He wrote, "Patty might suddenly become much less than outstanding if she had to bend over, squat, pick up and carry an object or person, climb, etc."

 

[GT/CS]

There is absolutely nothing discernible in that image at all.

Pssst, Dmaker, see post 2967.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

ISF may have so decreed, but I’m not bound to accept its ukase. I think what one should do is weigh the evidence appropriately, according to its degree of iffyness, not discard it.

But do you weigh the evidence appropriately? Or just when it suits the argument that you're upholding? You ignored the evidence suggesting that the butt-pad was something we'd seen long before the PGF, and it's quite clearly there, even clearer than the supposed finger-flex...

I have no frame devoted to finger bending in my PhotoBucket account. PhotoBucket has an image bank devoted to Bigfoot; maybe you found it there.
Incidentally, M.K. Davis showed me, many years ago, a pair of consecutive frames in the final walk phase in which all the right-hand fingers shift from handing down to a 90-degree bend. I think that’s better evidence than the ambiguous pair of frames in the second walk phase.

Maybe that's where I saw it, there was one frame claiming to show the finger-flex. The finger-flex has been covered in these threads before, and was rather adequately explained, imho. I would suggest reading through some of these older threads, btw.

Maybe that’s the frame(s) we should distrust, not the ones I’ve shown, eh?

Well, we could, if it was just one frame that it appeared in, but it's not. The diaper is there throughout the footage, and it's exactly like the Gemora butt-pads from long before...Which is obviously the clearest indication that either Patty is a suit, or Gemora took his inspiration from having witnessed the apparently natural diaper-like shape of the Bigfoot's female form. If we weigh up the evidence sensibly, which of those do you think would prevail?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

See Parcher's comment #3090 on page 78, to which I was responding. He wrote, "Patty might suddenly become much less than outstanding if she had to bend over, squat, pick up and carry an object or person, climb, etc."

But I'm still yet to see Patty being bent over in any image anywhere in this realm of reality.

The fact that MK Davis is the one championing those images that show absolutely nothing is rather fitting, as his Bigfoot Massacre was another mess of eye-squints and blurred vision.

 

[Roger Knights]

You're arguing about slouch vs. crouch? Really???

I wasn't "arguing." It was a passing remark that I called "a minor point," in a comment addressing a bigger topic. Why not set him straight? My target likely appreciates the correction—or ought to. Should I have let the error pass, given that I was making a comment on the entire sentence anyway? If you think so, tell me why.

 

[Roger Knights]

But do you weigh the evidence appropriately? Or just when it suits the argument that you're upholding? You ignored the evidence suggesting that the butt-pad was something we'd seen long before the PGF, and it's quite clearly there, even clearer than the supposed finger-flex...

Like your claim that there was a finger-flex frame in "my" PhoktoBucket account, this claim comes out of your imagination. I'll give you $100 if you can quote me as arguing against the diaper butt, here or anywhere.

On the contrary, I said that the diaper butt and images like it troubled me:

You’ve got to be in total denial, to not see that those two butts came from the same boutique. .

I have been troubled by about half a dozen of the phony-looking aspects of Patty that Skeptics have pointed out. Not all of them—many have been debunked, or are iffy / gray box material. OTOH, the authenticating features seem to me to be more numerous and equally convincing. So again I’m a bit on the fence, though leaning more one way than the other.

Each side thinks that its discrediting or authenticating evidence proves its case, and that those on the other side who won’t accept it are acting in bad faith. This tends to inflame debates.

But do you weigh the evidence appropriately? Or just when it suits the argument that you're upholding?

How about you?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Like your claim that there was a finger-flex frame in "my" PhoktoBucket account, this claim comes out of your imagination.

My mentioning of the finger-flex wasn't even in attack of you, so I'm not sure why you're getting so upset over it, tbh, lol. I simply stated that there is an image among the others that claims to show the finger-flex, I assumed it was in your account, but then you even went on to talk about it after I'd mentioned it and apparently think it to be genuine, so no harm done, eh? Not sure what the fuss is regarding that, really...

I'll give you $100 if you can quote me as arguing against the diaper butt, here or anywhere.

On the contrary, I said that the diaper butt and images like it troubled me.

Here's you, not even one hour ago, speaking about the diaper-butt of doom:

Maybe that’s the frame(s) we should distrust, not the ones I’ve shown, eh?

I'll gladly accept that £100 now, mate. Btw, I said you'd ignored the Patty/Gemora angle when it was brought up, and you essentially have done that.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

How about you?

Of course, hence why I'm of the very sensible opinion that Roger was a hoaxer who hoaxed a Bigfoot film and then toured with it to make a nest-egg for his wife.

Surely weighing up the evidence appropriately and sensibly leads to one arriving at the conclusion that Bigfoot simply does not exist, except for in the minds of a select bunch of people who already believe in such things.

You've claimed to be of the opinion that Bigfoot is a Tulpa, as opposed to just being merely a figment of the imagination and a work of legend.

There's no real way to analyse any of this without reaching the conclusion that I reached a long time ago.

To bother measuring Patty's anatomy shows that there's an obvious desire to not give up the ghost too soon, despite this footage being from 1967, and despite us still being Bigfoot-less.

This is why Northern Lights chose not to take my Bigfoot bet seriously, because it'll never be found whatsoever. We've more chance of finding more unseen evidence in the footage that we do have, seeing as it's fairly easy to be carried away with our imaginations when viewing old and blurry footage.

 

[Roger Knights]

Roger Knights, I think what you might be missing in all of those quotes from effects and costume folks is that there are an equal number, if not more, in the same industry who reject the PG suit as looking anything close to real. These "PGF=bad" artists would include Stan Winston and Rick Baker. Some think it looks realistic and others think it looks like a cheap suit. To whose opinion are we to give primacy, and why?

I didn’t come here to argue for the authenticity of the PGF (but to dispute the authenticity of Bob Heironimus). I wasn’t arguing for the authenticity of the PGF by citing the opinions of “their people” at Disney and “unnamed technicians in the special effects department” at Universal Studios, plus that of Janos Prohaska. They were only my response to Rockint’s challenge to provide opinions of costume experts who endorsed the PGF in the early days.

FWIW, I discount the opinions of Baker and Winston, whose films are criticized in: “The Patterson-Gimlin Film: What Makes a ‘Hoax’ Absolutely Genuine?” by “Barry Keith” (pen name), who examines Hollywood’s most prominent ape or Bigfoot films, finding flaws in all compared to Patty. Keith also pours scorn on the scornful comments by Hollywood’s big-name FX workers re the PGF. And he makes the pointed point that none of these bigshots have ventured to match the Patty suit. It’s at http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Keith_rev.pdf

In an earlier comment, I wrote:

Here’s another POV that also undercuts the presumed objectivity of the Hollywood naysayers; it’s from When Roger Met Patterson, pages 100–101, by Bill Munns:

”. . . you were invariably asked, “how was that done?” And if you answered, “I don’t know,” you didn’t get the job. You had to answer with some authoritative reply . . . even if it was a fabricated bluff. You had to give the impression that nobody could fool you or create something you couldn’t analyze and explain. . . . makeup artists would be hesitant to say the [PGF] film might be real, fearing that it might be proven a hoax after they said that, and then they’d look like the fool who couldn’t figure it out. . . . The real mystery became harder to solve, with this false bravado passing for analysis polluting the discussion.”

 

[Roger Knights]

@ Gilbert Syndrome in comment #3134:
Everything you write is a lie, even the "and" and the "the."

IOW, you are a bad-faith disputant whom I will never read or reply to again.

 

[Roger Knights]

So what part of THERE IS NO BIGFOOT are you still having trouble with Roger? . . . insane because of your obvious belief that Bigfoot can be "discussed" into existence.

Nowhere have I argued that Bigfoot exists as a natural animal in the real world, although I think there’s a chance that it does. (The most likel-to-exist real-world man monster is Indonesia’s orang pendek.).) The most I’ve said is that it the only way it could exist would be in a supernatural form. In other words, I conceded implicitly that the real-world disbelievers have the stronger case. Here’s what I wrote, in one of my first comments here, in reply to ABP:

My research specialty is a critique of Heironimus and associates. . . . My POV on the validity of Bigfoot is on the fence. I created a couple of double-sided business cards about ten years ago, each with about 20 pro and con arguments in compressed form. . . . I think that BF can't be "real" unless there's a joker in the pack (of reality)—which I already believe, based on three ESP experiences I had a long time ago. So BF could be a tulpa or something of that nature.

IOW, I came here to debunk Heironimus. Heironimus is the topic of the thread. I put the Patty “moonshot” photos up on PhotoBucket, not as ammo for the PGF, but against Heironimus, who denied he’d fallen or stumbled. I’ve appealed at least a couple of times for participants not to go off-topic into a discussion of the authenticity of the PGF. My boldfacing above constitutes a third appeal.

I’ve often been drawn into debates that are implicitly about the PGF’s authenticity, in part because it isn’t always easy to separate that from the question of Heironimus’s participation. (For instance, in countering a claim that Patty hadn’t bent, I posted the “moonshot” Frames.) And so it might be said that by defending the PGF’s authenticity I’m also implying a belief in Bigfoot. I assume that’s what you’re assuming.

But that’s not necessarily true. I could just be countering debunkers’ claims that the PGF’s been debunked (putting aside the question of Bigfoot’s not existing for the sake of argument) with evidence and arguments that it hasn’t been, or that there is just as strong evidence to the contrary. I’m saying it’s unresolved.

(My opinion, already expressed here, is that it’s been both debunked and authenticated. That’s what the Pranksters on Olympus would do—create such a mind-warping animal just for laughs.)

It’s odd for me to have more faith in the reality of Patty than of Bigfoot, because most Bigfooters hold the reverse position. But it’s where the evidence and arguments lead me. (Again, this backwards situation is what the Pranksters would or might do, so I’m OK-ish with it.)

BTW, in the comment following the one to ABP that I cited, I appreciated this comment of yours and will include its point in my compendium on Heironimus:

Yet, had I just pulled off a major hoax, maybe not so much. In that scenario, giving the film (for mailing) to the guy that was the actual 'monster' doesn't seem all that foolish really.

 

[Resume]

Here's another view, without my fingers. The preceding frames show her first walking normally, then beginning to bend, supporting the authenticity of the final bent-over frames. This frame and the next ones are a bit blurred, but not too badly. Gimlin said she fell to her elbows.

[qimg]http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y254/RogerKni/BF%20Patty%20Bending/MKDEndwalk1_zps2ef51977.png[/qimg]

Need squiggly colored lines.

 

[Vortigern99]

I didn’t come here to argue for the authenticity of the PGF (but to dispute the authenticity of Bob Heironimus). I wasn’t arguing for the authenticity of the PGF by citing the opinions of “their people” at Disney and “unnamed technicians in the special effects department” at Universal Studios, plus that of Janos Prohaska. They were only my response to Rockint’s challenge to provide opinions of costume experts who endorsed the PGF in the early days.

FWIW, I discount the opinions of Baker and Winston, whose films are criticized in: “The Patterson-Gimlin Film: What Makes a ‘Hoax’ Absolutely Genuine?” by “Barry Keith” (pen name), who examines Hollywood’s most prominent ape or Bigfoot films, finding flaws in all compared to Patty. Keith also pours scorn on the scornful comments by Hollywood’s big-name FX workers re the PGF. And he makes the pointed point that none of these bigshots have ventured to match the Patty suit. It’s at http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Keith_rev.pdf

The linked article is demonstrably inaccurate on several key points. Here's one:

[Baker's] hairy ape was as anatomically correct as possible, with fake ape extendo arms that stretched his human arms to ape-like proportions.

The first part of this sentence is not correct; the '76 Kong was designed to be bipedal, a human-like ape who walks on two legs. This decision changes the entire anatomy of the animal, including and especially the belly which in Baker's creation is not the bulky rotund bowl of a true gorilla, and of course the leg length. The suit is absolutely and intentionally not "as anatomically correct as possible".

The second half of the sentence is only correct part of the time, in shots where Kong doesn't need to flex his fingers. The writer of the linked article concedes this later in the article, but retains the inaccurate statement quoted above. This is not a diligent researcher or writer, and the majority of his claims can be dismissed as biased and baseless.