Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
the13bats

where is just one good picture of a real BF

307 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist
1 minute ago, Guyver said:

Lol.  Not a chance.  Wait......we’re you joking?  It sounded like you just said that under the same conditions, this suit above would look better than the patty suit.  That’s comical.  This suit would show zero muscle contraction.

As recently as 1994, the BBC paid a hollywood special effects company to recreate the PG film, using modern gear with body suit musculature and their attempt failed miserably, looking absolutely nothing like the original.

Thereis no muscle contraction in the PG film. Some people claim to see things that are not there.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
22 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Thereis no muscle contraction in the PG film. Some people claim to see things that are not there.

I'll just go ahead and disagree with you on that one.  Christopher Murphy, in his 2004 book entitled, "Meet the Sasquatch" actually has a section devoted to the film where he provides evidence that contradicts your claim here.  

I would also add that the MK Davis segment here demonstrates muscle flexion in a number of places, especially in frame 352, where flexion in the right calf muscle can be clearly seen in comparison with frame 307.  Additionally, muscle flexion in the right triceps and latissimus dorsi can be seen to some degree in earlier frames, as well as clear contraction in the forearm superficial flexors and movement of the fingers. The fact that the hands of the film subject open and close during the sequence demonstrates that any type of arm extensions built into a fake suit would have to be of the variety that allowed for individual control of the finger movements.  This type of technology did not exist in 1967 as far as I know.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

But whatever.....I don't really care.  I do however, take issue with 13bats notion that a man in a monkey suit could recreate the original, or surpass it.  Here's a link to the BBC's attempt at debunking the film.  This should clearly show that 13bats was mistaken, and the BBC subject has a muscular body suit designed to recreate the original.

link

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

PS.  I do want to add that I did in fact watch that x-creatures program by the BBC, so I saw the original piece....and may in fact still have it on VHS.  Anyway, what I find interesting and worth commenting on.....is that during the show, after they presented their recreation of the P/G film.....they actually took the position that their recreation was as good as the original and it could obviously have been faked.

But their recreation ACTUALLY SUCKED!  So yeah....perception is a real thing.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

I watched the video, and I just don't see what he's saying is there and sees.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox

M.K. Davis is the complete loon who originated the whole "Bluff Creek massacre" nonsense. He probably sees bigfoot faces in his breakfast cereal.

Edited by Carnoferox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
57 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I watched the video, and I just don't see what he's saying is there and sees.

Can you see this?  The picture below is a professional Hollywood special effects companies recreation of the original Patterson/Gimlin film.  Below is a still from the original....or rather copy of the original.  Do you notice anything different about the two?

image.jpeg.08c4257f542e5af5ab4972f23955a694.jpeg

image.jpeg.9b3067bb337b5c4d811d0645f515f70d.jpeg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
46 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

M.K. Davis is the complete loon who originated the whole "Bluff Creek massacre" nonsense. He probably sees bigfoot faces in his breakfast cereal.

What does that have to do with anything?  How does your statement that Davis is a "complete loon" have anything to do with the facts?  Oh wait....let me see, maybe I can figure this out.  If you make a claim.....like this guy is a loon.....then you can just dismiss all the points being made here and not have to think about anything.  Well that is convenient.

As I said, I don't really care what people think.  But that kind of dismissal tactic is bush league.  IMHO.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Lol.  Not a chance.  Wait......we’re you joking?  It sounded like you just said that under the same conditions, this suit above would look better than the patty suit.  That’s comical.  This suit would show zero muscle contraction.

As recently as 1994, the BBC paid a hollywood special effects company to recreate the PG film, using modern gear with body suit musculature and their attempt failed miserably, looking absolutely nothing like the original.

The pfg only shows muscle movement only to those who want to see it, the subject in the pgf is a tiny part in a large film the blow ups of copies of copies try to claim grain, shifting reflections, artifacts, etc are all kinds of things simple not there, the bbc was a fail, a close up sharp image of a subject in a suit not as good as my 39.99 halloween gorilla costume  isnt a fair comparison, grab leroy blevins suit, pattersons camera ( he was arrested for stealing) , and copy the rest of the conditions is an honest comparison.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
22 minutes ago, Guyver said:

What does that have to do with anything?  How does your statement that Davis is a "complete loon" have anything to do with the facts?  Oh wait....let me see, maybe I can figure this out.  If you make a claim.....like this guy is a loon.....then you can just dismiss all the points being made here and not have to think about anything.  Well that is convenient.

As I said, I don't really care what people think.  But that kind of dismissal tactic is bush league.  IMHO.  

Davis is a notoriously unreliable source who claims to see a lot of things in the PGF that aren't really there. You can cherrypick his work all you want but he's made some insane claims about this footage.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
28 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Can you see this?  The picture below is a professional Hollywood special effects companies recreation of the original Patterson/Gimlin film.  Below is a still from the original....or rather copy of the original.  Do you notice anything different about the two?

image.jpeg.08c4257f542e5af5ab4972f23955a694.jpeg

image.jpeg.9b3067bb337b5c4d811d0645f515f70d.jpeg

If a professinal makeup company cant even start with correct color then i cant defend them and to use this as the example why pgf is a real creature is ridiculous,

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
2 hours ago, Guyver said:

PS.  I do want to add that I did in fact watch that x-creatures program by the BBC, so I saw the original piece....and may in fact still have it on VHS.  Anyway, what I find interesting and worth commenting on.....is that during the show, after they presented their recreation of the P/G film.....they actually took the position that their recreation was as good as the original and it could obviously have been faked.

But their recreation ACTUALLY SUCKED!  So yeah....perception is a real thing.  

I agree, the bbc show was a joke just like a myriad other bigfoot documentaries made for entertainment not science,

Remember when meldrum insisted snow walker was a real creature and the creature was compared to the pgf creature and meldrum was dead wrong it was a fake and most true believers view meldtum as a bigfoot expert, if he was wrong about sn he could be wrong about pgf.

You can get all dramatic and the take issue with my valid point all you like it doesnt change the fact that in a fair comparison the pgf of a man in a fur suit can be reproduced by a man in a fur suit if nothing else my personal knowlege of costumes and common sense tell me that.

Mk davis is the magical man he is able to find stuff in the pgf never actually there ever meldrum doubts him....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
9 hours ago, DodgyDaoist said:

That is a very good point. Unfortunately when one digs into image quality on film versus digital it opens a can of worms thats simply crazy regarding photographers. With that being said, it does essentially come down to the way digital images are processed within the camera, the size of the camera sensor and lenses used.

From what i can glean though is that older pictures were generally shot with 35mm fiilm. If one correlates the equivelant in digital format it comes out at a minimum of about 87 Megapixels and even then wouldnt resolve the finer details of what can be captured with 35mm film. Film also picks up the smaller details in colour variations better than the everage digital image, thus there is a greater sense of "shape" to an object whereas the digital image will often appear "flatter" which can give the impression of being worked or photoshopped. Older cameras also had a little weight behind them, not necessarily a big factor , but enough of  a factor to reduce hand shaking and blurry images or video when compared to a smart phone while trying to hold it steady and capture a moving object.

A short article about film resolution and pixel count - https://kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

I think there are many factors to take into consideration within the photographic realm regarding UFO's to cryptids when we consider the older 'sharper' images as opposed to the crop of 'blob' images seen nowadays. Newer technology does not ideally mean better image quality.

 

While at first i would feel that way it doesnt wash for me and fails quickly, way too many people take great clear shots with their phones, except  for shots of bigfoot,

My wife took this from the car on the fly,

20190126_113538_20190126_114041-154x172.jpg.4ed932ddc351bc178995bd8993e1838e.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
38 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Davis is a notoriously unreliable source who claims to see a lot of things in the PGF that aren't really there. You can cherrypick his work all you want but he's made some insane claims about this footage.

I was just cherry picking one part of his work (and a very short one at that) to provide evidence for my claim that muscle flexion can be seen from the creature in the Patterson Gimlin film.  It's fine if people disagree with me.......as long as they take the time to investigate my points.  If after that, they find something wrong with my position, I'm happy to stand corrected.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
42 minutes ago, the13bats said:

The pfg only shows muscle movement only to those who want to see it, 

Did you actually take the time to examine the frames I referenced where muscle flexion can actually be seen in the film?  If not, then your statement above is bogus.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
40 minutes ago, the13bats said:

If a professinal makeup company cant even start with correct color then i cant defend them and to use this as the example why pgf is a real creature is ridiculous,

What?  Why is it ridiculous?  The creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film is without question a real creature.  It may be a real man in a suit, or it may not be.  I provided a reputable example of a re-creation from a professional company who went through great expense and time to demonstrate that the creature in the original is a man in a suit.  The makers of the program (the BBC) were convinced that their reproduction demonstrates that the PG film can be recreated.

So, people similar to you.....may in fact agree with the BBC that they have proven that a man in a custom suit can demonstrate that the original film was faked.  But it doesn't.  The BBC recreation fails not only by not getting the color correctly, but it fails to recreate the type of appearance the original film shows. 

Additionally, it does in fact show that if the creature in the PG film was a man in a suit, then Patterson himself was by far more talented than a modern day professional hollywood creature company.  Patterson's "fake" is so obviously superior to their attempt at re-creation as to be almost laughable.  

Can you provide evidence of a superior re-creation of the PG film, that shows a clever hoaxer could have pulled it off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
24 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Did you actually take the time to examine the frames I referenced where muscle flexion can actually be seen in the film?  If not, then your statement above is bogus.  

For over 40 years i have

You might not like or agree with my opinions but bogus "fake" they are not.

I find good or bad we have to "cherry pick" because all the sources have flaws.

You see muscle i see fur and padding,  i am not impressed when researchers take a copy of a grainy blurry jerky film electronically enhance it far beyond its resolution then say they see stuff not originally captured on the film stock, its just not science to say it is isnt correct, so in that i pay little attention to mk davis work, sad he ruined it for me.

Stop misquoting me or outright making up stuff i never said the bbc show proved pgf is a man in a suit, i agree the bbc documentary was a fail from the first time i saw it i questioned why did they do such a bad job, starting with color, it proved only that they failed miserably, seems on porpose so you far from provided a reputable example, you actually to me made yourself look bad that you had to use that.

What is hugely laughable is that you would gauge all modern special effects companies by that bbc doc, go look up what stan winston and rick baker said about the pgf subject, and what dick smith said back in the day "cheap fur suit"

Bigfoot in the 70s six million dollar man tv show was better than pattersons creature and i guess you have never seen chewie, jack links mascot or harry henderson, now pull the " but that was 67" card.

Here you go mistaken again, not my job or desire to prove anything to you, i see a man in a fur suit you see an unknown creature, im comfortable with that.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
4 hours ago, Guyver said:

I'll just go ahead and disagree with you on that one.  Christopher Murphy, in his 2004 book entitled, "Meet the Sasquatch" actually has a section devoted to the film where he provides evidence that contradicts your claim here.  

I would also add that the MK Davis segment here demonstrates muscle flexion in a number of places, especially in frame 352, where flexion in the right calf muscle can be clearly seen in comparison with frame 307.  Additionally, muscle flexion in the right triceps and latissimus dorsi can be seen to some degree in earlier frames, as well as clear contraction in the forearm superficial flexors and movement of the fingers. The fact that the hands of the film subject open and close during the sequence demonstrates that any type of arm extensions built into a fake suit would have to be of the variety that allowed for individual control of the finger movements.  This type of technology did not exist in 1967 as far as I know.  

 

 

I'll just go ahead and disagree with you on that one. There is no such thing as film enhancement in the way that you are lead to think. If the information is not there in the original film, no amount of tweaking is going to reveal it. What is actually happening, is the person doing the 'enhancement' has an agenda, and adds what he wants to so as to make you believe what he (and you) want. All you can really do is stabilize the original and examine that. And if you look at the original PG film with an open mind, you will see no muscle movement, you see the butt move independent of the rest of the body and in fact, everything id consistent with a man in a suit. As for recreating it, again, people are going to see what they want to. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
5 hours ago, Guyver said:

Yes.  But there also have been some copies of the film that appear to have been edited, so I’m sure that some people would just dismiss the whole thing as a hoax.  

I’ve watched a stabilised version of the film, and I cannot see the fingers move from their original position. Sorry. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
10 minutes ago, the13bats said:

For over 40 years i have

You might not like or agree with my opinions but bogus "fake" they are not.

So, you didn't actually reference my points after all.  There you have it.  I'm not calling your opinions bogus, I'm calling your claim that only the people who want to see muscle flexion in the film bogus.  I just pointed out where points of muscle flexion can be seen in the film and you didn't even bother to check to see if I provided reliable information or not.  

It's fine.  As I said earlier, I don't really care one way or the other.  The creature either exists, or did exist.....or it doesn't and I don't know for sure one way or the other.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
9 minutes ago, Gaden said:

I'll just go ahead and disagree with you on that one. There is no such thing as film enhancement in the way that you are lead to think. If the information is not there in the original film, no amount of tweaking is going to reveal it. What is actually happening, is the person doing the 'enhancement' has an agenda, and adds what he wants to so as to make you believe what he (and you) want. All you can really do is stabilize the original and examine that. And if you look at the original PG film with an open mind, you will see no muscle movement, you see the butt move independent of the rest of the body and in fact, everything id consistent with a man in a suit. As for recreating it, again, people are going to see what they want to. 

It's fine.  No point in arguing.  I am again going by the reference I made earlier from "Meet the Sasquatch."  Looking at the film frame by frame, with no enhancements but just blown up to focus on the creature in the middle does show muscle flexion from still to still as I see it.  I will respectfully disagree with you and no harm done.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
5 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I’ve watched a stabilised version of the film, and I cannot see the fingers move from their original position. Sorry. 

Just curious.  When you watched that stabilized version, did you happen to notice the breasts move at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I guess I don't really want to argue this point.  So, I'm going to slip out and go play some golf.  I will post this video before I go, at 3 minutes 45 seconds it shows transition from frames 308 - 311 of the film, and I believe it does show the right calf flexing.  Or it certainly appears to.....IMO, fwiw.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
19 minutes ago, Guyver said:

So, you didn't actually reference my points after all.  There you have it.  I'm not calling your opinions bogus, I'm calling your claim that only the people who want to see muscle flexion in the film bogus.  I just pointed out where points of muscle flexion can be seen in the film and you didn't even bother to check to see if I provided reliable information or not.  

It's fine.  As I said earlier, I don't really care one way or the other.  The creature either exists, or did exist.....or it doesn't and I don't know for sure one way or the other.  

Now you are making up stuff, very sad,

Ive obviously studied this topic more and far more open minded than you have.

I can lead a horse to knowlege i cant make him think.

 

Quote

I'll just go ahead and disagree with you on that one. There is no such thing as film enhancement in the way that you are lead to think. If the information is not there in the original film, no amount of tweaking is going to reveal it. What is actually happening, is the person doing the 'enhancement' has an agenda, and adds what he wants to so as to make you believe what he (and you) want. All you can really do is stabilize the original and examine that. And if you look at the original PG film with an open mind, you will see no muscle movement, you see the butt move independent of the rest of the body and in fact, everything id consistent with a man in a suit. As for recreating it, again, people are going to see what they want to. 

Very well said....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
18 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Just curious.  When you watched that stabilized version, did you happen to notice the breasts move at all?

I would hope a sagging bag of whatever patterson tacked on there would move...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.