• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Work and fishing have been keeping me busy too.
After satisfying my own curiosity that ALL BF evidence is bogus, I've pretty much given up on the whole issue.
But when it's a slow day, I'll poke my head in here to see what's going on.
Seems to be the final death spiral of any and all things BF.
After Meldrum, I don't really see any genuine scientist taking up the cause.
 
desertyeti said:
After satisfying my own curiosity that ALL BF evidence is bogus, I've pretty much given up on the whole issue.


Seems to be the final death spiral of any and all things BF.
Click to expand...


A little dose of reality...:)...


"There is no known mechanism by which a suit manufactured in 1967 — by Hollywood professionals such as John Chambers, let alone by a couple of middle-income amateurs — could effect the illusion of shifting, expanding muscles. It simply could not be and was not done at the time.

(NOTE...the following is a really cool statement ;))...

All Hollywood suits up until the 1970s were shapeless, baggy, and/or loose-hanging suits with no visible musculature.

(Even big-budget ape movies of the 1980s, such as Greystoke and Gorillas in the Mist, with expensive and articulated suits developed by industry greats Rick Baker and Stan Winston, respectively, do not depict muscular action seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film.)

Also of note is the distinct lack of any material folding, rippling or wrinkling.

There is no known material, outside of animal or human skin, which does not create visible folds as it is bent by the limbs which it covers."


From this article...

http://www.anomalymagazine.com/2009/03/02/the-patterson-gimlin-film-an-analysis/
 
:13 is compelling because it shows the figure’s right eye (viewer’s left), along with the nose, lips, jaw, cheeks, crown and a hint of ear.
Click to expand...

Wow! I've never seen that version of the PGF. Such detail!

:27 - :30 – Extreme close-up of figure’s right hand, with visible thumb flexion
Click to expand...

Let me guess, that's the bit that has turned out not to actually be the thumb....

Oh wait, I don't need to guess...
 
SweatyYeti said:
A little dose of reality...:)...
Click to expand...
You left this out:

:21 to :23 are compelling because here we can closely analyze the figure’s back muscles and hip muscles, which not only can be seen sliding over the figure’s underlying skeletal structure, but which expand and contract in a realistic fashion.
Click to expand...

Guess what Sweaty ? Muscles don't slide over any real animals skeletal structure ( but loose cloth and padding does ) , and no realistic muscle contraction can be seen in film.

Also the breasts are not pendulous .. Sounds like he's been reading the Roe account instead of looking at the film ..
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
You left this out:



Guess what Sweaty ? Muscles don't slide over any real animals skeletal structure ( but loose cloth and padding does ) , and no realistic muscle contraction can be seen in film.

Also the breasts are not pendulous .. Sounds like he's been reading the Roe account instead of looking at the film ..
Click to expand...

Demonstrate how cloth does that
 
Diogenes said:
....and no realistic muscle contraction can be seen in film.
Click to expand...


Not by you, Greg....but I see something that looks exactly like 'muscle contraction/bulging' to me...(and others, also)...


PattysToesAG12.gif



That's not the only apparent muscle movement on Patty.....there is more.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Not by you, Greg....but I see something that looks exactly like 'muscle contraction/bulging' to me...(and others, also)...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattys%20Toes/PattysToesAG12.gif[/qimg]


That's not the only apparent muscle movement on Patty.....there is more.
Click to expand...
Apparent is the key word here ..

That was debunked long ago ..

Anything else ?
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
Apparent is the key word here ..

That was debunked long ago ..
Click to expand...


What exactly was debunked?

Can you provide a link to the 'debunking'?



Also.....do you know of an example of a video which shows 'apparent calf-muscle movement' in a suit, which is comparable to what is seen in the animated-gif above?

I'd like to compare the two clips, side-by-side.


The whole idea behind 'analysis' is to demonstrate what one is claiming....not to just simply give an unsupported opinion...such as:

Diogenes wrote:
....and no realistic muscle contraction can be seen in the film.
Click to expand...


You see Greg...what you say you see, or don't see....doesn't really matter, as far as I can see! :)

As the old saying goes....

"If a tree falls in the forest....and a skeptic standing right beside it shouts (at the top of his skeptical lungs)......"I DIDN'T SEEEEEEEEEE THAT!!!"...:covereyes...did the tree really fall???

Dang tootin' it did! ;)


Greggy..........demonstrate something, please.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
A little dose of reality...:)...
Click to expand...

No, thanks. It has waaaay too much wishful thinking in it. I'm trying to cut down, you see.

Any comment on why if Bob Gimlin's long-time friend and neighbour, Bob Heironimus' story is such BS, we have proof of his involvement in Roger Patterson's escapades?

Also might we coax you out of the cornerhuddle long enough to try and produce the modicum of intellectual honesty to try and address the many glaring matches between the PGF and the William Roe story and sketches featured prominently in Patterson's book the year before?

Also, anytime you can actually answer the questions you say you have no problems with, post #711 in the PGF 3 is still waiting for you:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4425275#post4425275

ETA: "All Hollywood suits up until the 1970s were shapeless, baggy, and/or loose-hanging suits with no visible musculature."

This is fine evidence of Sweaty's blatant intellectual dishonesty. He has seen countless times here at the JREF suits as far back as the 30's with form-fitting simulated musculature. It's one of the lamest maneuvers he could try. One thinks that the logic for Sweaty's desperado behaviour is that he just hopes that maybe one single person might be dumb enough or uninformed enough to believe him.

He is truly one of the finest examples of intellectually bankrupt cultish footers.

Also ETA:

:dl:

Sweaty just gave you a quote from the worst woo rag ever. Nice source, Sweaty! LOL. What a joke!
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Also.....do you know of an example of a video which shows 'apparent calf-muscle movement' in a suit, which is comparable to what is seen in the animated-gif above?

I'd like to compare the two clips, side-by-side.
Click to expand...

Are you some type of simpering fool? You expect to just slip by an agreement that there is some jaw-dropping musculature rippling in your two frame poo?

Footer, I Gorn you:

 
kitakaze wrote:
Also might we coax you out of the cornerhuddle long enough to try and produce the modicum of intellectual honesty to try and address the many glaring matches between the PGF and the William Roe story and sketches featured prominently in Patterson's book the year before?
Click to expand...


Is it possible that the "Roe-ster" saw a real, live Bigfoot???
 
SweatyYeti said:
Is it possible that the "Roe-ster" saw a real, live Bigfoot???
Click to expand...

Nice try, prancer. I was very ready for you to try that. The matches go waaay beyond just the description of the creature itself. The encounter, the various sketches, the setting, everything. Try to muster up some kind of interest in the truth and compare for yourself:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4443732#post4443732

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4445070#post4445070

Noticed you had silence about what I pointed out about BH. You are so transparent it makes me laugh.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Maybe.
Click to expand...

And of course no comment about what you asked for.

Sweaty, you must make a terrible dinner guest. You have this habit of asking for and demanding things with hilarious arrogance and being a total clam when you get them.

You are Gorn with the wind:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom