Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[LTC8K6]

I read descriptions of those breasts as flopping, or being pendulous, or hanging down, but in the PGF, I see nearly rigid breasts.

This is one of those items that I have brought up several times where I wonder if people are looking at the same PGF.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Oh wow, I though that was a joke. No, if you watch the presentation, Bill was very obviously working under the pretext with his shock rig a three separate materials available at the time that he was trying to make a replication of what he was saying was the breast movement. Check it out yourself from 21 minutes...



Whole point was ok, let's try and make the shaking with things available in 1967. Slip runner, polyurethane, latex foam. 3 strikes, you're out. You were meant to be out, this was meant to fail.

Exactly, the rigid materials used for the prostetics failed. The live models matched the movement shown in the frames.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I don't know, maybe he did.

Joke son.

So anyway, aggressive bored is the more apt term. Aggressive Bored with ProBigfooters like you running their same ole number, "Yeah I saw one blah blah so you'll never change my mind." Well okay, I can admit when I'm wrong. As soon as you bring one in and show us, I'll eat all the crow you can supply. Too unreasonable? Okay I'll do it with just a good snapshot. Preferably from a Kodak™ Brownie™ camera. You know, to be faithful to the technologies of 1967 and stuff. 'Cause you know, 1967 is considered by most other galactic federations to be Earth's Year Of The Bigfooter. True story. Although the intergalactic newsmagazine LightYear™ headlined it best I think: 1967: Bigfoot's BIG Year.

Aggressive Bored yet?

Additionally, I think I'm really aggressive bored with you guys pretending you're seeking the Bigfoot 'truth'. How could you possibly be seeking Bigfoot truth when even the simplest of actual Bigfoot truths espoused here are virtually impossible for you (your ilk) to accept? How can we believe you're 'seeking truth' when you regularly deny the most basic of realities pertaining to the entire phenomenon? So much so you don't even argue them really, you simply discount them from the equation when they get in the way of allowing your version of Bigfoot to pencil.

Oh and I'm also really aggressive bored with Bigfoot never being the same 'beast' in any two stories. He's 10' tall, he's 6' tall, he's 8' tall, he's average, he's partly hairy, he's really hairy, he's average, he's furry, he's muscular, he's thin, he's average, he's white, he's black, he's fast, he's average, he's slow, he's red, he's handsome, he's average, he's caring, he's menacing, he's stealing my car, etc. etc. etc. The range of human beings isn't as diverse and there's 6 billion of us! Furthermore, the range in sizes and configurations of purported footprints is even more diverse so I won't even go there. Seriously, no two Bigfoot are the same. Hmmm. It's almost like Bigfoot is exactly the beast any one random person would THINK it is without the benefit of seeing one.

So do you have any idea how to get rid of all this Bigfoot aggression boredom you and your ilk regularly bring down upon us (me)?

I'll bet you don't.


ETA: Ahoy KK. Nice to see you here.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

You are sure and secure bigfoot does not exist. That's great for you. What do you expect from me? If you live nearby and wish to go out trekking let's go. I'm not for hire and I don't make deliveries. If you wanna solve the bigfoot mystery for yourself you'll need to put in the time and mileage trekking to do so. I have a great area available and you are welcome. Or you can sit by your computer and continue thinking someone should solve the mystery for you. I won't. But if you agree to put in say 18 months or so of effort there's a very good chance you'll solve it for yourself.

The easy way is to just deny everything and never make the effort to solve the mystery. If that's for you that's great. I'm of a different opinion.

 

[kitakaze]

Exactly, the rigid materials used for the prostetics failed. The live models matched the movement shown in the frames.

That then would be a perfect example of Rorschach Patty. To me in no way did those models breasts behave like Patty's. There breasts were comparatively small yet significantly drooped where Patty's hardly move at all. They move only with the chest, not independently of it as real breasts should...

 

[kitakaze]

I read descriptions of those breasts as flopping, or being pendulous, or hanging down, but in the PGF, I see nearly rigid breasts.

This is one of those items that I have brought up several times where I wonder if people are looking at the same PGF.

Exactly. I don't know how one looks at this and doesn't see a trainwreck suit, especially at the legs and waist...

 

[eerok]

My favorite part of Patty is the visor effect around the eyes, like they just sawed that part of the faux fur out with a knife so the poor guy could see.

The diaper butt and hip waders are tied for second place.

 

[eerok]

What do you expect from me?

Hey, I'm glad you asked. I expect you to not make low-effort requests for high-effort responses. The PGF was a joke 46 years ago, and nothing has changed. Munns has really tested nothing, his presentation is a dog and pony show, and he's not worth rebutting. Still, some will oblige you because, well, it's the internet.

And some people will be bored. I expect you to expect that.

If you wanna solve the bigfoot mystery for yourself you'll need to put in the time and mileage trekking to do so.

That's hilarious.

I'll skip the spirit walk and wait for objective evidence, thanks. I mean, it's not like I needed to trek the veldt to solve the mystery of lions.

If there's any mystery to solve, it's why some people still think the PGF is anything but a guy in a suit.

 

[The Shrike]

Exactly. I don't know how one looks at this and doesn't see a trainwreck suit, . . .

I've read allusions recently about Patty's head looking "too small" for her massive girth, apparently leading the feeble-minded to conclude that there could not be a human head in a mask of some kind in that image. In these frames, however, Patty's head looks quite large, kind of like a gorilla's. It's almost as if one cannot extrapolate too much fine detail from this film . . . or it conclusively demonstrates that bigfoot is indeed a shape-shifter!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That then would be a perfect example of Rorschach Patty. To me in no way did those models breasts behave like Patty's. There breasts were comparatively small yet significantly drooped where Patty's hardly move at all. They move only with the chest, not independently of it as real breasts should...

It might be the play of shadows, but this is the shot where it appears the left boob bounces while the right remains relatively stationary..

( I reversed left & right in my previous post )

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

It might be the play of shadows, but this is the shot where it appears the left boob bounces while the right remains relatively stationary..

( I reversed left & right in my previous post )

Munns says that they are "compressed vertically" and "widen horizontally" and "separate slightly" and uses a 2 frame loop to demonstrate this (slight and perceived) movement. I am not persuaded and feel the hi-lited explanation more convincing, particularly when viewed in comparison to Munns demonstration of real breast models on his step-stand-thingy...

 

[GT/CS]

That then would be a perfect example of Rorschach Patty. To me in no way did those models breasts behave like Patty's. There breasts were comparatively small yet significantly drooped where Patty's hardly move at all. They move only with the chest, not independently of it as real breasts should...

[qimg]http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k536/xspider11/patty-breast-bounce.gif[/qimg]

That Gif certainly highlights the top of the hip wader

 

[Chris L]

My favorite part of Patty is the visor effect around the eyes, like they just sawed that part of the faux fur out with a knife so the poor guy could see.

The diaper butt and hip waders are tied for second place.

I liked the visor thing too. It makes Patty look like a furry ninja to me. Quite funny really.

 

[Mister Earl]

That gif... there's a clear seam between the "top of the pants" to the "bottom of the jacket".

 

[eerok]

That gif... there's a clear seam between the "top of the pants" to the "bottom of the jacket".

That gif is high contrast, which tends to simplify forms, and that makes it easy to see the lines on the suit. For example, there's that couple of inches between the bottom of the diaper and the top of the waders--plain as day.

The waist of the diaper is very clear--actually the whole thing is.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I just love this .gif.. It Use to be ( Bob?) Zenor's avatar at the old BFF..

This is a slowed down version that provides more clarity to the movement features..

Another feature this .gif illustrates so well, is that as the arm swings back, it doesn't pull the breast back with it. But we do see that distinctive line that looks like shoulder pads underneath..

Did Bill show a real human, or even a model where to top of the breast area ( underlying pectoralis major ) did not get pulled to the rear as the arm swings back ? Chris? Anyone ?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Starting about 20:24 of the presentation I think significant movement is shown on Patty, then later that movement is replicated on the human models.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It might be the play of shadows, but this is the shot where it appears the left boob bounces while the right remains relatively stationary..

( I reversed left & right in my previous post )

I see movement of the breasts, some do not. To me it's there and that's why I would like to have seen a comparison of moveable prosthetic breasts instead of the rigid material prosthetics that were used.

However IMO it was probably the desire to make the "fakes" out of the available materials of the period that led to what was seen. I'm not second guessing the intent or the presentation. There will be many opinions as to why Bill used those materials.

I think it was a clever test and comparison but to satisfy every angle it may have been better to use some sort of moveable prosthetic breasts as Kit and I had discussed above. Surely something holding water or Gel could have been considered? Admittedly, I cannot do a better job than Bill Munns has. For what was shown, I personally am impressed.

 

[Mister Earl]

There will be many opinions as to why Bill used those materials.

Only one right one. He picked whatever he thought would give his argument the best chance and ignored everything else.

He's doing the same thing the fundies do. Making your mind up regardless of the facts, then cherry picking and twisting arguments to support your position and ignore everything else to the contrary.

He's not doing an investigation or engaging in science. He's engaging in a fundraising activity via the sale of snake oil.

That's it.

 

[William Parcher]

Bigfoot lives in California and Kentucky?

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

I see movement of the breasts.

Please tell me how the "breast movement" is any different from this group of frames which show Patty's head morphing. Or this post by Romano at BFF which I believe you were directed to earlier, which show the same thing over a different set of frames.

Seems to me that there is a better case for Patty being a shape-shifter than there is for her breast movement.