|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
15th March 2012, 02:35 PM | #8001 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
|
There's only so much detail you can extract from the PGF, which was specifically shot to defeat that very thing: identifying it as a man in a suit.
Roger Patterson has been practicing with the camera, hoaxing tracks, and using suits too - I can think of two incidents from the Long book - so Roger is well practiced at what distance he needs to film from to conceal that it is a man in a suit. As skeptics it seems objectively a man in a suit. But since the hoaxer conceals all the evidence there is only so much we can do with detailing his crime from inspection of his 3rd or more generation, wildly shaking video at distance. When a man of repute and ability like Phillip Morris steps forward to claim the suit as his, I think it is pretty compelling. He was running ads in entertainment magazines that included Rodeo circuit interests like Roger Patterson. He gave corroboration of Greg Long's findings with Roger trying to shaft him out of the money. The fact that Roger asked him numerous questions like how to make the shoulders bigger and arms "longer". Phillip Morris told him to use the football pads. He told him how to groom the fur, and he sent extra material for Roger to make alterations with - wow. If this isn't a smoking gun then there ain't no such thing. What is the next best story to that? |
15th March 2012, 02:59 PM | #8002 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 152
|
one thing that the "PGF is real" crowd overlooks when they ask why no one has made an exact recreation yet is (besides that hardly anyone is motivated to do so)-
its one thing to hoax a BF film, its quite another to recreate one. i am just some guy off the street and i could make a video in a clown suit that people would have trouble recreating exactly, especially if you dont have all of the details of what i did. while i dont think any of us have "disproven" the film, the collective efforts of a lot of people have made an extremely strong case against it's authenticity. |
15th March 2012, 04:15 PM | #8003 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 153
|
I would love to "attempt" to replicate the suit with 1960's era material only; however, I doubt it would convince the true believers that it IS possible to make a bigfoot costume with period correct material. They would argue that we have "advanced knowledge" of animal movement, movie costuming, etc. that obviously wasn't available in the 60's. It's a losing argument to the believer.
I actually would love to pitch a special to Discovery/History/Animal Planet entilted "Faking Bigfoot". Show how someone with 60's era materials could easily replicate the suit and the film. But again, not sure it would impress the entrenched. |
15th March 2012, 06:54 PM | #8004 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 834
|
Most likely they would just complain that your recreation was completely unconvincing. Much like when somebody Photoshopped Patty into various other backgrounds and passed them off as new bigfoot photos, only to have the PGF believers complain that the obvious suit was dead give-away before someone pointed out what they were really looking at.
|
15th March 2012, 07:05 PM | #8005 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
|
15th March 2012, 07:36 PM | #8006 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
|
Blevins has already re-created the suit well enough, without any background in costume-making. The materials Patterson had to work with were provided and suggested mostly by Phillip Morris.
I believe the only compelling mystery remaining on the suit is what Roger stufffed Patty's boobs with. |
15th March 2012, 07:53 PM | #8007 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
Didnt Dr. Scholls get his patent around that time ?They sure werent very..um.. "bouncy"? I guess that would rule out jello, balloons, water baloons, and also something else that I cant think of at the moment ?
Although someone will probably surely chime in here and say that they "look bouncy" to them.. I guess that is a subjective observation. Maybe Charmin ?? |
15th March 2012, 08:15 PM | #8008 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 153
|
For the fur, while the black bear hide is a great idea, I don't believe there would be enough material from a single bear, but I may be wrong. I am thinking Buffalo hide is perhaps a more compelling material, and would provide sufficient quantity of material.
For the boobs, simple. Fill a sock with rice. A little firm, but would wiggle just a little. So, how did Blevins build a suit ? It's impossible .... (tongue firmly planted in cheek) |
15th March 2012, 08:19 PM | #8009 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
Cooked rice or uncooked ? Popcorn could also work.. popped ?
|
15th March 2012, 08:24 PM | #8010 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 153
|
Uncooked. If I was lost in the suit, I could survive for a few days on the rice before I had to start boiling and eating the buffalo hide. It's a multipurpose tool for hoaxers.
|
15th March 2012, 08:40 PM | #8011 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
Plus if there was a "breakage" issue you wouldnt get lost ! Well.. assuming it isnt a major one !
Hi Jackal, I just wanted to say hello.. I am new to the Board also and I have found it interesting.. yet noone says hello very often. It seems that not believing in something that probably doesnt exist is a serious business around here ? Tom |
15th March 2012, 08:49 PM | #8012 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 153
|
Hello Tom. I love this site. After spending time on believer sites in disbelief of what passes as critical thinking these days, it was refreshing to find a site with people who use their brains. The crap people believe at face value is unreal.
|
15th March 2012, 08:57 PM | #8013 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 883
|
It is a fun site. Some times I wish that folks would just have more fun with these topics, especially this one ! I mean disproving this topic should be easy as the other side of this gives us so much ammunition to do so. They have for years.
|
16th March 2012, 04:22 AM | #8014 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
If you want a fun read go back and check out the first two PGF threads.
Oh, and don't miss this one. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=96467 |
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
16th March 2012, 09:22 AM | #8015 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 153
|
I would love to read all 200 pages of this thread and the others, but I only have 24 hours in a day. Since I am the noob, I get to ask one stupid question: Has anyone checked the historical weather records for the weather on October 20, 1967 ? Was it the clear sunny day captured in the film ? Given the time of year and proximity to the California coast, I would assume that the fall rains had started by that date.
|
16th March 2012, 10:08 AM | #8016 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
Ok you know people only talks about the 1 film and that is the PG film. however what people don't understand is there was 3 films coming out of Bluff Creek.
Let me show you. The first film that was shot there at Bluff Creek and Blue Creek Mount. I got a copy of a letter written by John Green to Bob Titmus. In this letter it talked about the tracks at Bluff Creek and the tracks at Blue Creek Mount. The tracking dog film is talked about in this letter. Now we have the tracking dog film was the first film shot there. They filmed this film from August 28 to September 4 1967. Here is a image of Dale Wallace holding the shoes made by Ray Wallace. These shoes match the tracks found in the tracking dog film. However also as you see this same track is found again in a documentary film made by Ron Olson in 1974 called Sasq- The Legend of Bigfoot. Here is a set of tracks that was made by Bob Titmus and he made these cast prints from the tracks found at Bluff Creek in 1967 and they also match the cast prints found in the PG film. As you see in this image here you see a frame from the PG film that shows the cast being made and the cast that Bob Titmus made. Now here it two frames the top frame is from the John Green film of Jim McClarin walking the path of the Bigfoot in 1968. The bottom frame is from the PG film frame 352 when the Bigfoot looked back. Now the reason why I point out these two locations in both film is to show that the film by John Green of Jim McClarin walking the Bigfoot path was filmed before Roger Patterson filmed his Bigfoot. Now let me show you. As you see I marked the things I found in both films. Both film shows a dog print in the same location. The bark is hanging down in the John Green film however in the PG film the bark was gone. The branch on the little tree is seen in the John Green film but this same little tree branch is gone in the PG film. In other words with these things changed in the PG film and all the things are seen in the John Green film shows that John Green filmed Jim McClarin was filmed before Roger Patterson filmed his Bigfoot. Now the question is how did Jim McClarin knew the path the Bigfoot walked when the Bigfoot was not even filmed at the time this film was filmed. Here is another part of that letter written by John Green on September 7 1967. As you see in this letter it talked about when 5 men from Humboldt State arrived on that Friday and that was September 1 1967. The start of labor day weekend. Now Jim McClarin was one of those men, he was going to Humboldt State in 1967. As you see here is two frames from 2 different films. The frame on the left is Jim Mcclarin from John Green film from 1968 walking the path of the Bigfoot. The frame on the right is Jim Mcclarin from the tracking dog film from 1967. I like to point out as you see Jim McClarin was in the Bluff Creek location 2 times as seen by these frames. Plus as you see Jim McClarin also has on the same cloths. And as you see again that Jim McClarin has a beard in both frames. As you have just seen by this research of mine there was more then just the 1 film that was filmed in that time period. I also like to point out one more thing. As you go over the PG film Roger Patterson used 2 different people. The first part of the walk was Bob Heironimus but the second part of the walk was done by Jim McClarin. As you see the Bigfoot lines up with Jim McClarin. Now I contact Jim McClarin about this and he claim he was not the Bigfoot in the film. However from my research he knew the path the Bigfoot was walking before they filmed the Bigfoot and the proof was found in the two films. And he walked just like the Bigfoot in the film and looked back the same as the Bigfoot in the film before the Bigfoot was filmed. Now the tracks Then these same tracks show up again in another documentary film in 1974, 7 years latter. As for the breast on the Bigfoot. The breast was not that hard to make and they do bounce if you add a little padding under them. |
16th March 2012, 10:10 AM | #8017 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
There was a half inch of rain in Eureka on October 21. It was warm on Oct. 20. Of course the filming was probably a couple of weeks previous.
Weather underground has the data; of course Bluff Creek is about 40-50 miles inland. http://www.wunderground.com/history/...lyHistory.html |
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot |
|
16th March 2012, 10:16 AM | #8018 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
As for the suit I am trying to get the materials together and remake the suit and believe you me I can make a better copy of this suit and I know how to do it and what to use in making it.
I know the style they use in making the suit and what they made the suit out of and more. Plus I found away to film the Bigfoot by using the same surroundings as seen in the PG film. Now I know people made claim that no one can make a real copy of this film but believe you me if I had the money to do it I can make a copy of this film down to the last details. And what I am going to do now is make a short video on the film and show you I can make it. I will do it today and post it today. |
16th March 2012, 10:39 AM | #8019 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM0uj...ature=youtu.be
Here is the test video I just made. It only took me about 2mins to film and 3 mins to make it and 1min to upload it on youtube. Now if I took my time it would be more clear and better. But what do you expect for only 6mins of work. |
16th March 2012, 01:16 PM | #8020 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Leroy, what is that? Is that a diorama?
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
16th March 2012, 02:54 PM | #8021 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
Sorry for the video. I added 9 new videos today on youtube and they all was taken off by some copyright laws.
I re-upload the video I made today on the Pg film here is the new site. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSJop...ature=youtu.be Sorry again. |
16th March 2012, 02:59 PM | #8022 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 153
|
Leroy, in the Green and Patterson debris pile comparison, I don't see some of the same details as you, but it does beg a different question. It looks like the stream bed extends to the debris pile, at least as the stream level rises. I would find it peculiar that a film made in October, before the winter rains, would match a film of the same debris made a year later. Now, given there was a flood that scoured the area several years earlier, and it may be a false assumption to assume what we see is the actual creek bed adjacent to the debris pile, but if it was the creek bed, I have a hard time convincing myself that the debris was unchanged following the winter rains. One could obviously verify the stream levels for the period of October 1967 until the time of the second film, and determine if the stream levels did rise, or if it was a drought year, and there was little rainfall and little stream level rise. To tie the whole thing together, if you researched stream levels, I think you could at least make a case that it would be unusual for a debris pile in a stream to remain unchanged for an entire year. But then again, what do I know.
|
16th March 2012, 03:39 PM | #8023 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
The story has always been that it rained hard that night, to the point of washing out roads and causing them to move the truck for fear they wouldn't be able to get it out.
|
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
16th March 2012, 03:55 PM | #8024 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
TheJackal- That is a very good point.
As it was told by Bob Gimlin he claim it rain that same night they filmed the Bigfoot and they left Bluff Creek because of the high waters from the rain. Now if we look at what you claim about the surroundings and high waters yes there should have been a lot of changes between the 2 films and the surroundings. However as you see by the 2 films there was no changes in the surroundings the only thing that was changed was the color of the leaves on the trees. Other then that there is no changes. Here is a negative of frame 352 Here is a negative of the John Green film of Jim McClarin. As you see in both frames there is not changes in the surroundings trees. Both image looked the same. The leaves in the trees are the same the tree branches are the same. The only changes from both films was the things I found in this image here. It is very easy to added color to film and even change colors in films. Just like when I point out as you watch the PG film you don't see no leaves on the ground or flying around that you should see at that time of the year. |
16th March 2012, 04:04 PM | #8025 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 153
|
Then obviously someone is bending the truth a wee. A torential rain would have changed the debris pile or at least moved a stick or two. If I am willing to jump to conclusions, then I would suggest that the Green film was in the late summer/early fall as a scouting trip for a film location. But I am sure, as the noob, someone else has beat me to that revelation.
|
16th March 2012, 04:13 PM | #8026 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
In my research I have done I looked over all the films that was filmed in 1967 and around the same time Roger Patterson filmed his Bigfoot film.
Then I looked at all of the men that surrounds these films. Look at this. There was 3 films, filmed in that location. The tracking dog film The PG film The John Green film of Jim McClarin. All 3 films has the same Bigfoot tracks in 2 of the films. The tracking dog film and the PG film both show the shoes made by Ray Wallace by the tracks seen in the films and by the feet on Roger Patterson Bigfoot. Now as seen Jim McClarin has on the same clothes in both films and was there when the tracking dog film was filmed and when John Green filmed Jim McClarin walked the path the Bigfoot walked. Now when they remade Roger Patterson film in 1968 they was very good friend with Ron Olson who's father owned a filming company in Salt Lake City Ut.(ANE) Then in 1974 when Ron Olson remade Roger Patterson documentary film these same tracks are found again in this film. To pull off a very good hoax all you need is a lot of people to back the film. And that is what they all did the same people that backed this PG film is the same men that pulled off the hoax. Again look at this. The men Roger Patterson John Green Jim McClarin Rene Dahinden Ron Olson Bob Gimlin Bob Titmus Ray Wallace They all was very good friends and they all knew one another. These same men filmed Bigfoot tracks and a so called Bigfoot. Then the only films that was filmed in that area of Bluff Creek was by these same men. However after these men left that area (Bluff Creek) all the reports and tracks stopped. |
16th March 2012, 04:21 PM | #8027 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
TheJackal-
I call the John Green film of Jim Mcclarin the practice run film. They did some filming to find the distance between the camera man and the Bigfoot. Then they picked the spots they need to do the filming and at the same time marked down a path the Bigfoot need to walk and how the Bigfoot should walk. Then they did this practice film just to see if it would work. |
16th March 2012, 04:38 PM | #8028 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 153
|
The practice run and scouting trip make perfect sense in terms of a hoax. If I am going to put someone in a suit that interferes with their natural gait due to oversized shoes, and a mask that restricts their vision, I would want to lay out my path so the actor didn't do a face plant on screen. Also, I can pre-shoot the track molding, and lay the tracks out at a larger distance than the actor was capable of walking. Erase those tracks, then shoot my film. Don't release the film until you are absolutely sure that there was enough rain to literally cover your tracks, then show up the next day with a complete film, supposedly shot a day earlier, and shock the world.
|
16th March 2012, 05:02 PM | #8029 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
We all heard the stories told about and around this 1 film time and time again.
However we have to look at it as a story and nothing more then just a story. As for the truth you have to look at the film itself and other films to find that true story. And from what I found in these films I found they all was filmed around the same time and they all was filmed by the same men. Now I have talked about this before however I like to point out somethings about this. As I claim and shown in the past a image of a man they took out of the film that walked in front of the camera and bends down out of frame. Bill Munns call this the S tree. However a tree does not walk. And this image if you watch the film is walking off to the right and bends down out of frame. As you see in the image above are frames from the tracking dog film. As you watch John Green walk you can see he walks in a S shape. This same shape you see in the PG film. Now the reason again why I claim this is a man walking off to the right and bends down is if it was a tree as they claim then why did they blurred this image out of the film. And they not only blurred it out of the one frame they blurred it out in 9 frames. As you see in the very clear image frame from the PG film you can see all the other trees and surroundings and even the Bigfoot. But the only thing that is blurred out is that 1 image. Here is a very clear frame from the PG film. As you see in this frame the Bigfoot and the trees and the ground and all of the surroundings. However as you see this 1 image is blurred out. They come up with a excuse for this blurry image as, well the tree was close to the camera or Roger Patterson was moving around at the time or one thing or another. But this image is blurred out of 9 frames from the film. here are some of the frames from the PG film that shows the two images they took out of the film. The first image you can see a image blurred out in about 5 frames however you can still see the person shadow behind the blurry image. And in this same location is where I found Bob Gimlin behind the brush. As you see here I did a close up of the man behind the brush and as you see it was Bob Gimlin. I get back to this. The same location they took out the first image of the man standing there was the same location that Bob Gimlin was standing behind the brush. Now as you see the other image of the man that walked and bends down out of frame as you see in the frames above are from the PG film and shows this same image blurred out in all the frames and not just the 1 frame they show. In this image here I show 2 frames and in the frame on the left I point out the location where I found Bob Gimlin. however as you see in that location there is no trees or leaves to make a image of a face and there is no face in that location. However in the second frame you see the face of Bob Gimlin behind the brush so what happen was Bob Gimlin stand up to get in the frames after the first frame of the left foot of the Bigfoot. In this frame here I got off of someone back in 2008 and they claim this was one of the frames they was recoloring when they remade the PG film in 1968. And as you see in this frame here the true color of the face behind the brush and you can even see the shoulders of the man and he is standing on a hillside. Plus I like to add that a person point out the red in the PG film frames and claim they are blood when all it was is the red was added to the frames when they re-color the film to make it look like fall colors. |
16th March 2012, 05:16 PM | #8030 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
Leroy, I think you are offering up little more than pareidolia. You are making far too many assumptions, and offering little proof. The things you are pointing out on the images are in error. For example, what about this face? Who does it belong to?
|
16th March 2012, 05:36 PM | #8031 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
River-
Sorry I don't see no face in the location you are pointing out. Like I have said in the past you don't have to believe my research. But I think at this point I have shown more on the film as a hoax then these other researcher can show as proof the film is real. Remember this these same researchers that back this film claim no one can make a suit like the 1 in the film and also these same researchers claim no one can make a fake track that shows Dermal ridges in them and a break in the middle of the foot. And as you see I have put these claims to rest and shown it can be done. |
16th March 2012, 07:02 PM | #8032 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
|
You left off Al DeAtley, which is important for motive, means, and opportunity to coalesce: He financed the production of the film, the road show, ancillary organizations like clubs and "research" organizations, newsletters, etc. -
Green, McClairin, Dahinden, Olson, and Titmus are opportunists trying to cash in. Wallace is the grandfather of track hoaxing, still going his own way and eventually producing some really bad bigfoot film clips. The PGF film hoax consists of Producer Al DeAtley, director Roger Patterson, Nominal "Indian Tracker" sidekick and stage hand Bob Gimlin, and finally actor in suit Bob Heironimus. Four people. You've added six people to the PGF conspiracy that were not direct participants, and left off two: the Producer and the Actor. Sure, the other fellas were in the bigfoot mileau, and so was Peter Byrne and a number of others. But they weren't in on the PGF production. Who made the most money off this? Looks like Al DeAtley. Roger Patterson made out. Gimlin got the shaft until he got some residual scraps recently. Bob Heironimus got the shaft. The others tried to make their own market off what Wallace started in the 1950's with the tracks he hoaxed. That in turn followed the Yeti nonsense arising in the Himalayas and exploited by Peter Byrne. These people are not working together in one grand coordinated conspiracy. Leroy, what researchers typically do is review the literature that was written before they arrived, and it would be really beneficial to your research effort to read Greg Long's Making of Bigfoot. Because you really don't have a handle on the context of the production of the PGF, which is all Al DeAtley. |
16th March 2012, 07:17 PM | #8033 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,661
|
|
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio |
|
16th March 2012, 07:38 PM | #8034 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
AlaskaBushPilot-
you are right I forgot to add Al DeAtley and Bob Heironimus. However if I read Mr.Longs book then I be basing my research on his research. And again we have to look at what he written in his book was stories told by people. Even though he shows some images and copies of letters he still bases his research on the words of the people. The research I do is I base it on what I find in the film myself and the questions I ask the people involved in this film and the test I do. Let me explain: If I just go over other people research and just base all of my findings in their research then there would be no research from me and there would be no images and a suit to show if I just gone over their research. Plus we have to look at some of the things told by these people. Like Bob Heironimus. He claims there was only the 3 of them there that day but in the film you can see there was more then just the 3 men there then when I call Bob H myself and told him some of the things I found in the films and image he gets real nervous and then hangs up on me. Then Bob H. Claims the suit was made out of some kind of horse hide and it had a smell to it. Now as you have seen in some of my research I show that the hands was bear paws and that the suit was made from a bear hide. But, they claim the suit was made by Mr.Morris and then Bob H. back up this story as well. Yes there is some truth to the stories they tell but, there is still a point that some of them can add more to that story just like Bob Gimlin. Bob Gimlin claims the Bigfoot is real in the film but over the years his story changed more and more every time he tells his side of the story. This is why a researcher can not base no research on words told to him. A researcher has to base his or her research on what can be seen in the films or images they are analyzing. Like the film they claim that they developed on a Saturday. Now people time and time again claim this can not be done on a Saturday however I made contact with filming companies and I found the company that developed the film for Al Detaley. And that company is Alpha Cine. I contact this company and they told me yes they did developed the film for the Bigfoot people. They are open 7 days a week and they develop film for TV stations and they also told me they can develop film within a short time and the same day. They are open from 7am to 12am 7 days a week. so yes the film can be develop on a Saturday back in 1967. So I hope you see what I am trying to do when it come to this film I look for the truth in my research. And base my research on my findings and not what other researcher has written or post. |
16th March 2012, 08:41 PM | #8035 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
|
Leroy, having Bob Heironimus hang up on you sounds sensible to me. He was there, you weren't. You're off the reservation here with Bob Gimlin's face and the fuzzed-out fourth person. But you're free to offer what you think.
Low signal-to-noise ratio with the Blevinator once we move off the subject of the suit he made. |
16th March 2012, 10:08 PM | #8036 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
|
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
17th March 2012, 12:16 AM | #8037 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
The outline of shoulder pads and a backplate attachment can be seen under the costume in frame 61:
|
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot |
|
17th March 2012, 05:26 AM | #8038 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
Parn,
I don't remember shoulder pads having those lower plates when I played so I think they are a more recent invention. |
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
17th March 2012, 09:21 AM | #8039 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
|
LTC8K6-
Yes the PG film that people been researching does in fact has sound on it. Here is a image send to me by MK Davis. He send this to me when I ask him about the sound on the film. And MK Davis even knows there is sound on the film. As you see the sound bar on the left side of the film. I am showing this image here for the narrator on the PG film claim these 2 men was Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. As you see they are not Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin the 2 men are in fact Jerry Merritt and Bob Heironimus. Now even Bill Munns in his reports talked about the narrator on the PG film and he too said he don't think the 2 men was Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin as claim on the film. Yes again I have to prove myself time and time again. And as you have seen I show images to back up my claims and I show something on my claims. As for others they claim there was no sound on the film but all they can do is show words and nothing more just the words. The sound was added to the film in 1968 by Ron Olson and ANE they added the sound and a narrator to the PG film. But they never played the sound on the film when they show it. But there are some old TV shows that did play some of the sound on their show. So YES the PG film does in fact has sound on it. |
17th March 2012, 09:38 AM | #8040 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 343
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|