Jump to content


Photo

Would A Good Recreation Of Patty Affect Your Belief In The Pgf?


  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

Poll: Would a Good Recreation of Patty affect your belief in the PGF? (42 member(s) have cast votes)

If, to your standards, someone did a good job in recreating Patty and the aspects that make you believe she is a Bigfoot using techniques and materials available in 1967, would it alter that belief?

  1. Voted Yes, I would go from believing she is a Bigfoot to sincerely suspecting that she may be a man in a suit. (9 votes [21.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.43%

  2. No, a recreation, while interesting, doesn't mean anything and I would not stop believing her to be a real Bigfoot. (9 votes [21.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.43%

  3. Voted It's impossible to do so because no average human could match Patty's physique and proportions and nothing could ever possibly change my position about that. (10 votes [23.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.81%

  4. I do not accept Patty was a real Bigfoot so this would only reaffirm that position. (14 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 07:32 PM

Please feel free to specify and discuss your poll selection here.
  • 1
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#2 HOLDMYBEER

HOLDMYBEER

    Oh Mah

  • Members
  • 591 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 07:42 PM

It would have an impact in my thinking so long as it was shot onsite (or there abouts) and an accounting of costs disclosed.
  • 0
HOLDMYBEER

...If it wasn't documented and the document available for review....it did't happen.

#3 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,426 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 08:00 PM

Can you define...."belief in the PGF"?
  • 0

kitakaze wrote....within the very same paragraph...

 

"I have never stated that all biometrics as relating to Patty are fabricated non-reality.

 

What I have also said is that biometrics objections are 'Bigfoot science' to me, and that 'Bigfoot science' is fabricated non-reality."


#4 Crowlogic

Crowlogic

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 08:04 PM

No, a simply good representation of the PGF would not cut it. It would need to be a near perfect representation and or better. Such a recreation would have to have all hallmarks of what real live animals have when filmed. The recreation creature would also have to have a perfect proportion range comparable to the PGF, especially the head. Lastly it would have to be made with materials period with the film and it would need to be filmed on true film not tape or digital. I don't think that's possible even with modern materials and process.

Edited by Crowlogic, 08 February 2012 - 08:08 PM.

  • 0

#5 parnassus

parnassus

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 08:04 PM

It would melt the other half of my face if any of the hard core believers would ever accept any re-creation, no matter how close it came.

but I was amazed at how close a guy like Leroy Blevins came, with what ? a couple hundred dollar suit, before, on the fourth day, he rested. If one straightened out his white feet a bit, thinned out the hair a bit, and sewed in a few bulges, and filmed him in lo res, it might be pretty close.

of course, I could be wrong. For example, I thought the Giants would win easily.
  • 0
Another day, another million trailcam-days, another ten million securitycam-days, another 8 billion miles driven in the US, and still no bigfoot images and no bigfoot roadkills.

#6 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 08:20 PM

It would have an impact in my thinking so long as it was shot onsite (or there abouts) and an accounting of costs disclosed.


HMB, since I'm sure you haven't forgotten what Steven Streufert has shown us about the area where the PGF was filmed, I think you might understand this is not reasonable for recreating Patty. One would need a comparable film location to Bluff Creek in 1967, not Bluff Creek today since the creek bottom is completely overgrown now. As for the accounting of the cost, would you have a problem with an expensive recreation?

This man was a disaster with money...

Posted Image

This man was a kickass tiger shark that could handle finances and mack the market like nobody's business...

Posted Image

Poor cowboy PGF dreams are just that - a dream and not reality. The reality was whether or not you think the PGF was real, DeAtley was Patterson's Bluff Creek sugardaddy. Just ask Gimlin.

Can you define...."belief in the PGF"?


Yes, I can gladly and promptly answer this simple question for you...

Belief in the PGF = Believing the Patterson-Gimlin Film to show an actual living Bigfoot and not a man in a suit based upon one's subjective interpretation of what is seen on the film.

Edited by kitakaze, 08 February 2012 - 08:16 PM.

  • 1
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#7 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,426 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 08:23 PM

kitakaze wrote:

Belief in the PGF = Believing the Patterson-Gimlin Film to show an actual living Bigfoot and not a man in a suit based upon one's subjective interpretation of what is seen on the film.



Can you define what you mean by...."belief/believe"?
  • 0

kitakaze wrote....within the very same paragraph...

 

"I have never stated that all biometrics as relating to Patty are fabricated non-reality.

 

What I have also said is that biometrics objections are 'Bigfoot science' to me, and that 'Bigfoot science' is fabricated non-reality."


#8 Crowlogic

Crowlogic

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 08:23 PM

It would melt the other half of my face if any of the hard core believers would ever accept any re-creation, no matter how close it came.

but I was amazed at how close a guy like Leroy Blevins came, with what ? a couple hundred dollar suit, before, on the fourth day, he rested. If one straightened out his white feet a bit, thinned out the hair a bit, and sewed in a few bulges, and filmed him in lo res, it might be pretty close.

of course, I could be wrong. For example, I thought the Giants would win easily.


Blevins managed to make monkey suit he could tramp around it and come off semi credible. But here's the rub and we can use vintage car restoration as an example.

Most car shows judge a car on a 100 point scale. The ideal score is 100%. Restoring a car let's say Jaguar XK series cars since I've done one or two of them is not horribly difficult to build to be an 85 point car. Blevins is about 85 points out of 100 which is the PGF. When you decide to make a 100% restoration the effort and money to achieve those last 15 points takes as much effort and money as the first 85 points. Today $85,000 dollars will get you an 85 point restored XK Jaguar. True 99 or 100 point Jaguar XK cars cost around $150,000 to sometimes $200,000 to complete. Blevins is one step above a person in an off the shelf gorilla suit. Getting his effort to truly compete with the PGF requires skills and money Blevins does not possess. Also we're only seeing Blevins most successful footage. We don't know how bad it may have looked in all the outtakes. I don't think the Blevins effort could ever really compete with the PGF. Whatever eventually may compete hasn't been made yet and will be of advanced materials and methods.
  • 1

#9 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 08:32 PM

No, a simply good representation of the PGF would not cut it. It would need to be a near perfect representation and or better. Such a recreation would have to have all hallmarks of what real live animals have when filmed. The recreation creature would also have to have a perfect proportion range comparable to the PGF, especially the head. Lastly it would have to be made with materials period with the film and it would need to be filmed on true film not tape or digital. I don't think that's possible even with modern materials and process.


Remember, I said good to your standards. I anticipated just this manner of response when making the poll. Reasonability must be inserted into this question. Take good to your standards to mean that it met all the criteria you mentioned and it met it well. Then try answering the poll from that perspective. How reasonable can you be about a recreation attempt? How would a good recreation attempt affect your belief? That is what this poll gauges.

Let's use a skateboarding analogy since baseball is boring to me and I don't think the homerun to seat 2A analogy is appropriate. Let's say one guy busts a nollie hard flip late flip. Now you ask me to do it. Are you going to accept I did it if I land it three inches sooner on the coping than that other guy? Also, if I did it from regular stance instead of nollie, but it was still a hard flip to late flip, are you going to not accept it?


  • 1
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#10 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:09 PM

Can you define what you mean by...."belief/believe"?


Yes, I most certainly can. Piece of cake. If you can just go follow this link I provide for your convenience to the Poser7/Daz Studio overlay thread and answer this simple yes/no question that you've been ignoring for quite some time now, I will be more than happy to accommodate you...

SweatyYeti, does the scaling on the wall in the physical test using the Spiderman figure and thus the camera perspective change in a way that affects the foreshortening of the figure in a way that nullifies the physical recreation of the Poser 7 skeleton?

http://bigfootforums...180#entry139856
  • 1
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#11 Crowlogic

Crowlogic

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,259 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:31 PM

I was replying to Parn's post about Blevin's being OK if nipped and tucked here and there. Actually it would take a virtual from scratch since the parts left unmolested would still not look reasonably good to the PGF. I don't think there is a reasonable answer for the poll. Since the only reasonable way to make the recreation relies on period materials and filming its unlikely to happen. If made with modern materials and process credible to excellent is possible but not as a hoax busting device. Hoax busting has to recreate 1967 in all the key areas of the PGF. I could be impressed with a modern perfect recreation but it would still be a hoax in its own right as modern process is. A 21st century perfect reproduction is only feather in the cap of 21st century effect techniques. It wouldn't change my mind about the PGF. At this point in time nobody has a handle on how to bust the PGF on it's own turf of 1967.

Remember, I said good to your standards. I anticipated just this manner of response when making the poll. Reasonability must be inserted into this question. Take good to your standards to mean that it met all the criteria you mentioned and it met it well. Then try answering the poll from that perspective. How reasonable can you be about a recreation attempt? How would a good recreation attempt affect your belief? That is what this poll gauges.

Let's use a skateboarding analogy since baseball is boring to me and I don't think the homerun to seat 2A analogy is appropriate. Let's say one guy busts a nollie hard flip late flip. Now you ask me to do it. Are you going to accept I did it if I land it three inches sooner on the coping than that other guy? Also, if I did it from regular stance instead of nollie, but it was still a hard flip to late flip, are you going to not accept it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Uyo9o3du4


The Skateboard example is not applicable. If you want to use it you'd have to nail the move virtually exactly like the person you're emulating.

It will take a period process and material virtually nailing 99% of the PGF to change my view about it's reality. Anything less will never silence the debate. This is something of a silly thread. You should have included PERIOD MATERIALS and PROCESS since this is the only proper way the issue can be constructed and tested.
  • 0

#12 HOLDMYBEER

HOLDMYBEER

    Oh Mah

  • Members
  • 591 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:38 PM

HMB, .......... One would need a comparable film location to Bluff Creek in 1967, not Bluff Creek today since the creek bottom is completely overgrown now. As for the accounting of the cost, would you have a problem with an expensive recreation?


Yes, ' or there abouts' but comparable in difficulty to Bluff Creek 1967. It is much easier to get to the film site today. I would need an accounting. "Expensive" doesn't mean anything to me.
  • 0
HOLDMYBEER

...If it wasn't documented and the document available for review....it did't happen.

#13 JohnC

JohnC

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,537 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:48 PM

I do not think it would make a difference,simply because there is to much irrational, bias discussion on the actual film as it is. The recreation would be subjected to the same irrational bias as the original. What one person would see as convincing, another would see as unconvincing. Just like some people see an obviously real Bigfoot in the PGF, and others see an obvious suite. It would only create more debate, more argument,and thousands of posts.
  • 0

#14 Incorrigible1

Incorrigible1

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 7,370 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:56 PM

Would have liked to have seen a "perhaps," or "possibly." Or "It would be food for thought." But the choices, as presented in the poll, are far too cut and dried.

Still, I would truly appreciate such an effort, if in earnest. Yet, any such recreation would be enormously subjective. As proof:

but I was amazed at how close a guy like Leroy Blevins came, with what ? a couple hundred dollar suit, before, on the fourth day, he rested. If one straightened out his white feet a bit, thinned out the hair a bit, and sewed in a few bulges, and filmed him in lo res, it might be pretty close.


As my avatar character sez, "Wowie, wow wow wow!" To in any way, shape, or form ascribe the Blevins miscarriage as "close" is a fair example of the chasm between certain proponent's subjective opinions and my own.

PGF and Blevins: One does not resemble another.

Edited by Incorrigible1, 08 February 2012 - 09:59 PM.

  • 3

Who is John Galt?


#15 wiiawiwb

wiiawiwb

    Wildman

  • Sésquac
  • 144 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:56 PM

"Good" recreation is a silly adjective. If people are so convinced that Patty was a suit in a man, they should be able recreate Patty, with benefit of today's technology, exactly as we see her in the PGF.

"Good" is for both the undertalented and manipulative.
  • 3

#16 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,426 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:03 PM

kitakaze wrote:

Yes, I most certainly can.



Then define it.
  • 0

kitakaze wrote....within the very same paragraph...

 

"I have never stated that all biometrics as relating to Patty are fabricated non-reality.

 

What I have also said is that biometrics objections are 'Bigfoot science' to me, and that 'Bigfoot science' is fabricated non-reality."


#17 notgiganto

notgiganto

    Yowie

  • Inactive
  • 1,059 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:05 PM

"Good recreation" is just as subjective as all the other terms that have been asked to be clarified.
Honestly, no recreation will likely be good enough for some. I guess that is the point of this thread.
Point = moot.
The original film itself will still (rightly in my mind) be held up as proof to be fleshed out, no matter how subjectively "good" a recreation may be.
The mystery of an old grainy film will trump a high tech new fangled recreation any day, IMO. Not making a value judgement on that, just a statement.

Edit to add: I fail to see how a "good recreation" could really even be possible as an "apple to apple" sort of comparison. The subjectivity involved, and the unknowns likely would make most any recreation "apples to oranges" on some arguable level. Then the mystery continues...

Edited by notgiganto, 08 February 2012 - 10:11 PM.

  • 0
I may believe in the possibility of the existence of relict populations of undiscovered hominoid creatures, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck...

I don't think that what 'bigfootery' is searching for is Gigantopithecus, or even a descendant thereof...but I reserve the right to be wrong :)

#18 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 7,041 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:12 PM

Then define it.


After you follow this link I provide for your convenience to the Poser7/Daz Studio overlay thread and answer this simple yes/no question that you've been ignoring for quite some time now, I will be more than happy to accommodate you...

SweatyYeti, does the scaling on the wall in the physical test using the Spiderman figure and thus the camera perspective change in a way that affects the foreshortening of the figure in a way that nullifies the physical recreation of the Poser 7 skeleton?

http://bigfootforums...180#entry139856

You need only write between two letters (no) or three (yes).
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#19 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,228 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:17 PM

I agree with wiiawiwb. You'll need a lot better than 'good' to convince anyone who sees countless aspects of the PGf Creature which look real and unlike every Bigfoot suit ever made (and, yes, there have been many). I thought that since you told us that you and Phil were working on that like a year and a half ago, you would have something to show by now, kit, I never expected it to be good though, sorry.
  • 0

From the Centre for Fortean Zoology, 'Statement of Core Belief':
9. That the CFZ should be an international brother/sisterhood of like minded people who work together, mindless of differences of creed and culture, to push back the boundaries of human knowledge, for no other reason than that it is a good thing to do...

 

 


#20 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,426 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:32 PM

kitakaze wrote:

After you follow this link....



I didn't think you would care to define the term...'belief'.

A definintion in 'scientific terms' would conflict with your use of the word in phrases such as 'PGF Believer'. :)

Edited by See-Te-Cah NC, 17 February 2012 - 07:50 AM.
To remove religious terminology

  • 0

kitakaze wrote....within the very same paragraph...

 

"I have never stated that all biometrics as relating to Patty are fabricated non-reality.

 

What I have also said is that biometrics objections are 'Bigfoot science' to me, and that 'Bigfoot science' is fabricated non-reality."





0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users