The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Vortigern99]

There has been very little vigorous debate about the PGF in the last 41 years. Very little debate at all. It's been pretty much ignored for most of those years, I believe.

Most scientists didn't think much of it after it came out, and it basically faded away.

It only recently became "popular" again.

Okay, thanks for the correction. The debate is certainly vigorous now, though, at least among the on-line skeptical community and several experts and scientists. I'm not saying that makes the film legitimate or "real", I'm simply backing up my assertion that the debate is vigorous.

 

[xblade]

It can't hide behind the excuses made for the equally lame BBC effort which some will come to its aide by saying it was never supposed to be the PGF.

Yep, they tried so hard to duplicate the Patty suit that the BBC suit looks nothing like it, right down to the oh so wrong hair color, leaving little doubt that they were indeed trying to make a suit that looks just like the Patty suit.

 

[Crowlogic]

Yep, they tried so hard to duplicate the Patty suit that the BBC suit looks nothing like it, right down to the oh so wrong hair color, leaving little doubt that they were indeed trying to make a suit that looks just like the Patty suit.

The BBC effort Is a thing onto itself. It works as a device to illustrate how objects appear on film. It fails in any other comparison with the PGF. However Morris/Bob fail where they should have walked away with the prize. It should have been a cakewalk slam dunk. In any event we know this much from it.

1. Bob apparantly Pattywalked so badly or the suit lokked so bad that they couldn't actually show him in true motion.

2. Phil Morris can be scratched off the list of who made the suit.

 

[kitakaze]

2. Phil Morris can be scratched off the list of who made the suit.

Deal. NEXT!

 

[SweatyYeti]

BELIEVE all you desire but it is not a valid comparison. You do not even provide any measurements. You state it matter-of-factly as if it is proven, which it is not. Trying to imply you are being objective and scientific about what you present IS WRONG. You are being dishonest to yourself as well as to others here. I suggest you prove that Bob can not fit in Patty's head. Show us some actual measurements with some real high resolution images. Demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that Bob's head is too big. If you can't prove it using something other than crayons, then your claim is false.

I will try and demonstrate your claim is false using the data in the image you presented. As I stated already, there is nothing in this image that shows his head is too big. I actually did some measurements as crude as they are. At the line level, I get 76 pixels for the width of "Might be bob in a suit" and 77 pixels for "Bob in a suit". Assuming we are talking about 72 inches (roughly 6 feet) as the height of Bob as seen in this frame, then we are talking about roughly 7 pixels per inch (the height of Bob is 508 pixels in your image). Now Bob is not fully erect, so I can suggest it is more likely 66 inches, which equates to almost 8 pixels per inch. You can do the rest of the math. The difference of 1 pixel equates to less than a 1/7th or 1/8th of an inch. Measurement error, resolution of the images used, the postions of the heads differing, thickness of the materials in the mask, etc can all account for this minor deviation between the two. Even if the difference was 3-4 pixels, we are talking about 1/2 an inch at most. Again, the errors involved can easily explain the difference. Your argument fails. "Make believe" all you desire. Stick your head in the sand or whatever but don't pee on my leg and say it is raining.

Since you seem to think Bob's head is too big to fit into "might be Bob in a suit" 's head, what does that mean about "Aunt Bunny"? Is she a pea brained monster with a tiny head? What does that mean for all of her other body proportions? Is she a midget in the bigfoot community? Surely, if her head is that small, she must be a shrimp in size.

Are you able to answer my question, Astro? Or is it too difficult for you?

Here it is again...


Is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??


This is not a matter of "belief"....so don't try to turn it into one.

 

[SweatyYeti]

IMO Morris could not possibly have supplied the suit, whether Heironimous is the person inside or not. A standard-issue, shapeless, baggy ape suit, purchased via mail-order from a typical costume shop such as Morris', would not have been able to achieve the degree of realism evident on the film that has inspired 41 years of vigorous debate among scientists and laymen alike.

Unless such a costume had been considerably modified with padding, some means of hiding the seams/zippers, and accurate arm and back musculature (again, IMO), there's simply no way a suit of the kind Morris sold could account for the lifelike surface features of the P-G figure.

That's 100% correct, Vort.

I've said the exact same thing myself before....about the "degree of realism" of Patty.
(BTW, when I used the term "degree of realism" kitakaze went off into one of his mad rants. I noticed that when you said it, he had no comment.)


When I talked about Patty's 'realism' before, I made the point that the unique quality that Patty has, that NO other "suit" has, is the ability to be ambiguous.
The fact that Patty's true identity is 'ambiguous', as opposed to 'obvious', is attested to by the fact that some very intelligent people have continued the 'vigorous debate' over the years, thinking that she may be a real Bigfoot.


"Excuse me".....

The fact of the matter is, is that there is no video of a suit, (in which the suit is seen under similar circumstances, and resolution as the PG Film subject), that has even risen to the level of "ambiguous".....let alone 'convincing'.

'Men in Shaggy Suits' look like 'Men in Shaggy Suits', quite possibly without exception.


Why.....here comes one now......lucky us...

Quick quiz for the kiddies.....when you stop laughing...

Was that 'ambiguous'???



Bonus picture..."The Man from the Shaggy Lagoon"...

 

[Crowlogic]

That's 100% correct, Vort.

I've said the exact same thing myself before....about the "degree of realism" of Patty.
(BTW, when I used the term "degree of realism" kitakaze went off into one of his mad rants. I noticed that when you said it, he had no comment.)


When I talked about Patty's 'realism' before, I made the point that the unique quality that Patty has, that NO other "suit" has, is the ability to be ambiguous.
The fact that Patty's true identity is 'ambiguous', as opposed to 'obvious', is attested to by the fact that some very intelligent people have continued the 'vigorous debate' over the years, thinking that she may be a real Bigfoot.


"Excuse me"..... [qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/gorilla6.jpg[/qimg]


The fact of the matter is, is that there is no video of a suit, (in which the suit is seen under similar circumstances, and resolution as the PG Film subject), that has even risen to the level of "ambiguous".....let alone 'convincing'.

'Men in Shaggy Suits' look like 'Men in Shaggy Suits', quite possibly without exception.


Why.....here comes one now......lucky us...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/BadSuit1.jpg[/qimg]


Quick quiz for the kiddies.....when you stop laughing...

Was that 'ambiguous'???



Bonus picture..."The Man from the Shaggy Lagoon"...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/sas1.jpg[/qimg]

Sweaty wait a minute! that top photo can't be a suit! It doesn't have a thigh line, diaper butt, and no evidence of subduction in the leg. It has to be real!

The #2 photo wow the feet are too big, the legs are too long and the arms are too short.

As for the #3 well that one isn't bad at all. Except the hands are too thick, the facial features are to plastic (non animate) and the sheen on the fur is all wrong. However the legs look good with the flow of hair.

Clearly suits are a tough act to get right (even for the pros.)

However that #1 is no suit sorry!

 

[LTC8K6]

Since Crow quoted it...What would these suits look like when used in duplicate circumstances of the PGF?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Are you able to answer my question, Astro? Or is it too difficult for you?

Here it is again...


Is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head, based on this comparison (and the other comparisons I've posted, also)??


This is not a matter of "belief"....so don't try to turn it into one.

That is not what you initially stated. You originally stated:

That comparison shows very clearly how, when they are scaled to the same height, Bob's head is too big to fit inside of Patty's coney head...

There was no "think" or "may" about it. If you want to change your claim to "think" (aka "believe") that it "may" be too big, go right ahead. However, your original claim is flat out WRONG because we now know it is NOT too big. Go right on "thinking" (aka "believing") all you desire. However, the facts show your "thinking" is WRONG...AGAIN!

 

[Astrophotographer]

I've said the exact same thing myself before....about the "degree of realism" of Patty.
(BTW, when I used the term "degree of realism" kitakaze went off into one of his mad rants. I noticed that when you said it, he had no comment.)

"Degree of realism" can not be quantified. It is a subjective measurement based on bias. We have seen several special effects experts state that "aunt bunny" looks like a guy in a suit. Their definition of "realism" differs than yours. Various suits look more or less real than others to the observer. However, to suggest "aunt bunny" can not be a suit because it is too "real" looking is not a valid statement because different observers (who are experts in special effects) see it as a suit when the look at it.

 

[Drewbot]

I want to see the video, with the dark Patty, with the burned out bubble mouth and nose. All the video I have ever seen is the brown Patty.

 

[Vortigern99]

That Patty has a degree of realism with regard to its surface features does not mean it is a real non-human primate. That is the essential distinction that SweatyYeti appears incapable of making.

 

[Correa Neto]

Its a bit more complicated.

To the date of writing, sweaty and every single PGF-shows-the-real-deal proponent has failed to show a set of non-subjective criteria to define Patty's alleged realism. A set of criteria, a method which would allow everybody to reach similar conclusions. All we have so far are their personal impressions. I fail to see this über-realism. Why should I consider their opinions better than mines?

Just claiming I am a denialist is not enough. On the contrary- it only shows they are unable to back their claims propperly.

But hey, this is bigfootery's standard, eh?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Beauty (or realism) is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh, really?

Sorry, can't help myself sometimes...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Sweaty wait a minute! that top photo can't be a suit! It doesn't have a thigh line, diaper butt, and no evidence of subduction in the leg.

It has to be real!

You know, Crow....you're absolutely right!

After my initial disbelief, and shock, wore off...I went and took another look at some of my images.

Here's what I found......


One of the most realistic aspects of that "suit" is seen on the back of the legs....the back of the knee, to be specific.

Notice how tight the suit is against the back of the knee...

Now, when we compare that to the back of Patty's knees....we see the exact opposite....loose, separating suit...especially when the calf muscles bulge.

First the left leg...

And then the right leg...

An obvious loosey-goosey suit!

The #2 photo wow the feet are too big, the legs are too long and the arms are too short.

As for the #3 well that one isn't bad at all. Except the hands are too thick, the facial features are to plastic (non animate) and the sheen on the fur is all wrong. However the legs look good with the flow of hair.

Clearly suits are a tough act to get right (even for the pros.)

However that #1 is no suit sorry!

I agree, Crow! They're very hard to get right.


It's fun posting those hokey suit pictures, every now and then.....they're always good for a chuckle, or two.

 

[kitakaze]

Are you able to answer my question, Astro? Or is it too difficult for you?

Oh, this is delicious. These are the moments I truly enjoy. I must savour it. Hmmm... should I choose every question Sweaty's dodged in the last month or so? Overkill? How 'bout just a couple goodies? Yeah... let's do that:

Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking.

1) When confidently pronouncing that "Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking," what was your sample base? IOW, how many humans did you compare to?

First....In response to kitakaze's question, quoted above..."How many humans did I compare Patty to?"

Enough humans, for my liking.

Are you able to answer my question, Sweaty? Or is it too difficult for you?

1) After you tell me who the individual in the images belonging to and featuring Roger Patterson can you please tell me what you think is the reason that person is present in the situations the images show?

Let's see.....what is the reason why Bob Heironimus is in those pictures???

Ummmm.......I have no idea.

If I had to venture a guess....I'd say it was because Bob's application to become an astronaut was turned down...and, he quickly became despondent...and joined-up with the first rodeo rider he came across, in order to keep his mind off of his lost opportunity to walk on the moon.

Am I right?

Are you able to answer my question, Sweaty? Or is it too difficult for you?

This is not a matter of "belief"....so don't try to turn it into one.

It is absolutely and completely a matter of belief with you, Sweaty. You have concluded and believe that Patty is a real Bigfoot and are completely closed to the possibilty that she is not no matter if you say she might not be. Actions speak far louder than words.

Here are a couple of questions designed to illustrate your belief...

Mangler, using Poser 7 software has demonstrated with a single skeleton that Bob Heironimus' proportions such as limb lengths and height are a very close match for Patty. You refuted this by claiming that different skeletons were used and thus mangler perpetrated a hoax on us by manufacturing evidence to fit a preconceived notion even knowing the evidence to be false.

Mangler, refuted and destroyed your false accusation by explaining in explicit detail and showing exactly how he conducted his direct comparison. In addition to this he gave the information necessary to allow you to investigate whether or not the results could be duplicated. You have continued with your accusation with more line drawings, offered no attemps with Poser 7 to duplicate or falsify, and offered no acknowledgement, apology, and retraction of your false claims.

Here is a simple yes or no question which can be followed by any explanation you like.

Has mangler refuted your claim that he hoaxed us by using separate skeletons with the Poser 7 direct comparison? Yes or no.

Next question.

You have stated that Bob Heironimus' head simply could not fit within the confines of Patty's head. You have recently modified this when ask Astro "is it wrong for me to think that Bob's head may be too big to fit inside Patty's head." As illustrated above you have also claimed that Patty's arms are inhumanly long. When asked for the sample base regarding this proclamation, you simply evaded the question. You have also stated that Patty is too wide to be Bob Heironimus. You stated that if BH were to wear the padding necessary to achieve the width, that his arm movement would be restricted beyond what you called Patty's free and fluid arm movement. You were given a number of examples of padding that greatly expanded the upper toros, back, chest, etc while retaining free arm movement and ignored them.

Let us suppose by your modification, evasion, and silence that you are willing to admit that these statements regarding Patty vs BH's dimensions may be in error. For the moment let us assume that these assertions are in fact false. Here is a simple yes or no question which can be followed by any explanation you like...

Assuming that the above assertions are false, does Bob Heironimus' proven connections to Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin at the time when the PGF was made, as well as his friendship with one of the alleged hoaxers and extreme close proximity to both greatly increase the likelihood that BH's claims to have been involved in the alleged hoax may be true? Yes or no.

Let us see you answer these questions as an intellectually honest person for whom the issue is not a matter of belief.

I predict that since the issue is one of belief and that you are unwilling to concede the ground that would be given represented by these questions, that you will either evade the questions or seek to obfuscate them. IOW, they will prove too difficult for you, Sweaty.

 

[kitakaze]

That's 100% correct, Vort.

I've said the exact same thing myself before....about the "degree of realism" of Patty.
(BTW, when I used the term "degree of realism" kitakaze went off into one of his mad rants. I noticed that when you said it, he had no comment.)

Hey, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out, Sweaty. Vort, as I and others have pointed out many times (yes, Sweaty, the issue was discussed with Vort participation many times), the realism you prescribe to Patty is subjective. Still, you find the top part of Patty to have a degree of realism while you find the bottom part to be false looking so... meh.

When I talked about Patty's 'realism' before, I made the point that the unique quality that Patty has, that NO other "suit" has, is the ability to be ambiguous.
The fact that Patty's true identity is 'ambiguous', as opposed to 'obvious', is attested to by the fact that some very intelligent people have continued the 'vigorous debate' over the years, thinking that she may be a real Bigfoot.

You're pointing out a major weakness in the claim of Bigfoot being a real species. You believe the creatures to exist in crazy places like New York state. The fact that there are no unambiguous images or videos of Bigfoot is a major problem. We have a thread on the subject where you can continue to get powned if you like.

The fact of the matter is, is that there is no video of a suit, (in which the suit is seen under similar circumstances, and resolution as the PG Film subject), that has even risen to the level of "ambiguous".....let alone 'convincing'.

'Men in Shaggy Suits' look like 'Men in Shaggy Suits', quite possibly without exception.


Why.....here comes one now......lucky us...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/BadSuit1.jpg[/qimg]


Quick quiz for the kiddies.....when you stop laughing...

Was that 'ambiguous'???



Bonus picture..."The Man from the Shaggy Lagoon"...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Gorilla%20Suits/sas1.jpg[/qimg]

That was an intellectually dishonest manuever. One that you often try. It shows how insincere your pursuit of the truth is and how conniving you are in your efforts to support your beliefs. You know those images to in fact be men in suits. If the figures were the subjects of the PGF rather than Patty, it is absolutely fair to think that they might inspire as much if not more fanatic belief as Patty has.

Nice try, Desperado. Dishonest footer maneuver busted again.

 

[Drewbot]

Click-Click-Clik-Clik-Clik My Geiger Counter doesn't Clik when I see patty.

 

[kitakaze]

Nice. Except you put Patty too low. Sweaty would have her tickling max.