• 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.
Here again is Charlie Gemora inside and outside of a gorilla costume. The suit adds lots of shoulder width and overall bulk.


085a4919.jpg
0a2dfc1a.jpg
 
Wow, you mean SweatyYeti has been proven to be incorrect/erroneous/credible/given to making unsubstantiated assertions/invalid claims?

Color me AMAZED.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Invalid??!! Again???? Crap!
Click to expand...

If you are going to use out of focus, low resolution images where the arms tend to blend into the body and the pixels blur into the background, it is going to look bigger. I asked for measurements and proper scaling, you give me garbage. Try producing something of high resolution where we can see something more than an outline and then we can have a sane discussion about your scaling and if the body really is too massive to be a human in a suit. BTW, I see football players wearing all sorts of gear that makes them look pretty big in the shoulders and the chest when they really are not. I am not sure what you are trying to prove other than that it could be a bulky suit. However, it does not prove that it can not be a suit.
 
Last edited:
It's the same for Janos Prohaska. The ape suit widens his shoulders and gives overall bulk. Ironically, this comes from a clip of him explaining his skepticism about Patty being a human actor.
 

Attachments

  • prohaska.jpg
    prohaska.jpg
    79.5 KB · Views: 0
  • prohaska2.jpg
    prohaska2.jpg
    76.5 KB · Views: 0
Astrophotographer said:
If you are going to use out of focus, low resolution images where the arms tend to blend into the body and the pixels blur into the background, it is going to look bigger.
Click to expand...



Check it out, Astro......baby...:)...


FrameWA4b.jpg



The right arm is distinctly shaded, while Patty's back is clearly in full sun.

The extreme width of Patty's upper-torso is clearly visible....her body 'widens-out' at the top of the legs, and is the same width all the way up to the armpits.



I asked for measurements and proper scaling, you give me garbage.
Click to expand...


Actually.....this is garbage...:)...


Doofus3.jpg




Nice work, Astro.
 
William Parcher wrote:
The ape suit widens his shoulders and gives overall bulk
Click to expand...


It widens his shoulders, from the outside.....not his chest area/torso, between the arms.

Big difference.
 
Mr. Yeti, did you miss Parcher's Gemora/gorilla suit pics? The torso bulk is quite evident.


William Parcher said:
Here again is Charlie Gemora inside and outside of a gorilla costume. The suit adds lots of shoulder width and overall bulk.


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/085a4919.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/0a2dfc1a.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
 
William Parcher said:
Here again is Charlie Gemora inside and outside of a gorilla costume.

The suit adds lots of shoulder width and overall bulk.
Click to expand...


The suit doesn't appear to be widening-out the actor's chest....just the outside of his shoulders...

jokesuit11111.jpg




"Big Deal".......it doesn't say anything about Patty's unusual body dimensions.
 
Last edited:
Vortigern99 said:
Mr. Yeti, did you miss Parcher's Gemora/gorilla suit pics?

The torso bulk is quite evident.
Click to expand...


No it isn't.

Can you demonstrate how that suit's chest width (torso bulk) compares with someone outside of a suit??

I can...and have....done so with Patty's torso width, and Bob's torso width.
 
Last edited:
I, Noah D. Henson, aka JREF member Vortigern99, do hereby avow that this is the final message I will ever post to JREF member "SweatyYeti".

SweatyYeti said:
Vortigern99 said:
The torso bulk is quite evident.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

Can you demonstrate how that suit's chest width (torso bulk) compares with someone outside of a suit??
Click to expand...


085a4919.jpg
0a2dfc1a.jpg


SonGodzillaPhoto3.jpg
437239244_0ff208008b.jpg


mask2b2.jpg
mask3b.jpg
mask2a2.jpg


Edited for rule 12. Do not make personal attacks.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

Vortigern out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems very strange to me....if Patty was actually a guy-in-a-suit...that Roger didn't get a good shot of Patty from directly behind, early in the film, while they were still fairly close together.

The extreme chest/torso width is absolutely a major feature of that alleged "suit"....and yet, Roger did not arrange to get a good, close-up look at it.

In the first part of the film, Roger's angle-of-view is about 3/4 of the way behind Patty......very close to directly behind....

fr9aa.jpg



....and yet, he chose not to get the FULL WIDTH of Patty on camera, when it would have had it's strongest effect on the viewer.


As Columbo would say....."Gee, that seems strange to me. Does it seem strange to you??? I mean you go through all that work, to custom-form padding to make the guy's chest extra wide...and then you just ignore it.
I just don't get it! .............Oh well!"
 
SweatyYeti said:
It seems very strange to me....if Patty was actually a guy-in-a-suit...that Roger didn't get a good shot of Patty from directly behind, early in the film, while they were still fairly close together.

The extreme chest/torso width is absolutely a major feature of that alleged "suit"....and yet, Roger did not arrange to get a good, close-up look at it.

In the first part of the film, Roger's angle-of-view is about 3/4 of the way behind Patty......very close to directly behind....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patty%20and%20Bob/fr9aa.jpg[/qimg]


....and yet, he chose not to get the FULL WIDTH of Patty on camera, when it would have had it's strongest effect on the viewer.


As Columbo would say....."Gee, that seems strange to me. Does it seem strange to you??? I mean you go through all that work, to custom-form padding to make the guy's chest extra wide...and then you just ignore it.
I just don't get it! .............Oh well!"
Click to expand...


Now why in the world would a hoaxer ever want a good shot of the suit? That's the last thing the hoaxer wants in his film.

We never have a good clear focused shot of bigfoot. Ever. Not since the subject came up have we had a good look at a bigfoot. If we did, we'd see that it's not bigfoot.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
The right arm is distinctly shaded, while Patty's back is clearly in full sun.

The extreme width of Patty's upper-torso is clearly visible....her body 'widens-out' at the top of the legs, and is the same width all the way up to the armpits.
Click to expand...

Another low resolution image that blurs into the background. Do you have anything that is better? This is GIGO (Garbage in = Garbage out).



SweatyYeti said:
Actually.....this is garbage...:)...
Click to expand...


Hey, as I said before, I was trying to give your creature theory the benefit of the doubt and showed how the head probably sloped. However, overprocessing/scans/motion blur/etc resulted in the head not being perfectly resolved. Instead of an argument of how that was not possible, you keep throwing it out as a futile gesture of last resort. What this image demonstrates, using your lines, is that this is nothing more than a floppy headpiece that did not fit on top of the persons head very well. Thanks for demonstrating that it is not a creature but a guy in a suit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom