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

#21 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,682 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:08 PM

As I said, I am more than happy to do that for you. You need only stop ignoring my own question I have been trying to get you to answer for weeks now. This one...

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?

All you need to do is type between 2-3 letters, and I can type all the letters necessary to define "belief/believe" for you. It's called a dialogue. I've answered plenty of your questions. If you want an answer to another question, whatever it is, wherever it is, you will need to show that you can provide the same I do for you. Very simple. Getting a definition for "belief/believe" involves clicking on the link I have you and typing "yes" or "no."

If for some reason you find that unfair, I welcome you to explain why I should answer the questions of someone who refuses to answer mine.

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).


Countless? My goodness. Is this an encouragement for the people you want to make a recreation attempt or would that be a no? If you could work with something a bit more managable than "countless", it would go a long way into giving the potential suit recreator and idea of the wall that is the Bigfoot believer xspider1. How shall they pass, XS? Can you provide a laundry list of things the recreator needs to recreate before satisfying XS? Please include all of them so the recreator can be sure XS won't go and move the goal posts later. Please tell us exactly where XS' suit recreation goalposts are for future reference. You may want to preface that first by specifying which selection you made on the poll. Thanks.

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.


My goodness. A year and a half? Has it been that long? I think I started my project about a year and a half ago. Is that not fast enough for you, XS, because I'll happily offer you some suggestions how to contribute to making things go as quickly as possible.

I haven't lifted a single finger on the suit recreation portion of the documentary project. I'm currently dealing with finances regarding far, far more important things.

To be specific, when I do get to it, it will be with Dfoot who's travelling crosscountry with his wife now, FX artist John Vulich, and Phil Morris. Can you specify a timeline you'll be happy with, because in return there are a number of proponent projects I would like to know what timeline you are wanting. This is, after all, all about giving Bigfooters what they are asking for.
  • 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

#22 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,183 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:24 PM

kitakaze wrote:

As I said, I am more than happy to do that for you. You need only stop ignoring my own question...



I didn't ask you to define the term you chose to use in this thread...for my sake. I made the request for the sake of 'clear understanding on a discussion board'....for anyone who would be interested in such a thing.


As I said...

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 - 07:53 AM.
To remove religious terminology.

  • 0

                 PattyFace4_zps6f24d0b4.jpg


#23 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,682 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:35 PM

I didn't ask you to define the term you chose to use in this thread...for my sake. I made the request for the sake of 'clear understanding on a discussion board'....for anyone who would be interested in such a thing.


Excellent. As did I. Can you please type "yes" or "no" in answer to the following question in the overlay thread for the sake of a clear understanding on a discussion forum for anyone who would be interested in such a thing?...

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?
  • 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

#24 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,677 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:40 PM

"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."

We often hear the names of established and respected Hollywood makeup artists who say the PGF is a fake. Blevins' effort would be far more credible as "pretty close" if perhaps one or several of those respected makeup artists would care to endorse Blevins effort and give their expert opinion that it was "pretty close". I, for one, would be fascinated to see if any of those artists would so endorse Blevins effort.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#25 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,183 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 11:45 PM

Excellent. As did I. Can you please type "yes" or "no" in answer to the following question in the overlay thread for the sake of a clear understanding on a discussion forum for anyone who would be interested in such a thing?...

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?



Why do I need to provide that understanding? Can't you provide 'clear understanding' of your own work, with your own Spiderman dolls?? :lol:


Can you not also provide a clear, concise, scientific definition for your own terms, which you chose to use in your thread??
  • 0

                 PattyFace4_zps6f24d0b4.jpg


#26 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,682 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:04 AM

Why do I need to provide that understanding? Can't you provide 'clear understanding' of your own work, with your own Spiderman dolls?? :lol:


Not only I certainly can, I certainly did. I asked you to quantify the change you said was happening in relation to what effect it might have on the foreshortening. You declined so I quantified it for you. I did it with the wall, the middle of the scanner where the figure stood, and the front of the scanner. I measured no change to the foreshortening and thus your claim of a change and that the experiment is meaningless is incorrect from my measurements. Thus I asked you if the scaling on the wall and thus the camera perspective changed in a way that affected the foreshortening of the figure thereby nullifying the physical recreation of Poser 7.

Can you not also provide a clear, concise, scientific definition for your own terms, which you chose to use in your thread??


One again, yes. I can provide answers to a person who does not ignore my own questions regarding their statements and analysis. Once you respond with a simple "yes" or "no" to my question in the overlay thread, plus any further thoughts you'd like to share on the matter, if you have any. It could not be easier. This is a discussion board. I will define discussion for you in order to help clarify for you why you are not immediately getting all you ask for...

Discussion - The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

"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."

We often hear the names of established and respected Hollywood makeup artists who say the PGF is a fake. Blevins' effort would be far more credible as "pretty close" if perhaps one or several of those respected makeup artists would care to endorse Blevins effort and give their expert opinion that it was "pretty close". I, for one, would be fascinated to see if any of those artists would so endorse Blevins effort.

Bill


Posted Image

http://www.dicksmith...com/contact.htm

Edited by kitakaze, 09 February 2012 - 12:00 AM.

  • 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

#27 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,677 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 04:40 PM

Kit:

Are you implying **** Smith endorsed Blevin's effort?

If so, got a source.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#28 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,154 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 05:04 PM

Countless? My goodness.

Yes, believe it or not, living Creatures have countless things about them that make them real. That is basically why the PGf has been scrutinized for this many decades. It's not because a few things look real.

I haven't lifted a single finger on the suit recreation portion of the documentary project.

I'm not suprised. Just team up with Tontar, he can do it easily for $500. Luckily, none of your team needs to know what they're doing. ;)
  • 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...

 

 


#29 Thickfoot

Thickfoot

    Bukwas

  • Inactive
  • 392 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 07:18 PM

An excellent recreation would change nothing because it would be a modern day recreation ..
oranges/apples kind of thing. If someone came with something similar from '67 time period then
perhaps...
  • 0

#30 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,154 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 07:22 PM

Sorry, I could have said something nicer. :punish:

I wish you luck, kitakaze. You're a smart guy and very dedicated to proving the PGf to be a hoax. In a non-PGf world, we might actually agree on something. :declare:

Hearing about how the realism of the PGf Creature could be readily replicated and, that it already has been replicated to a reasonable degree, is becoming a very tired mantra for the hoax conspirists, imo.

It's a good topic! thx

Edited by xspider1, 09 February 2012 - 07:38 PM.

  • 1

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...

 

 


#31 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,682 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:28 PM

Kit:

Are you implying **** Smith endorsed Blevin's effort?

If so, got a source.

Bill


No, Bill. Think what you asked for. You wrote...

"We often hear the names of established and respected Hollywood makeup artists who say the PGF is a fake. Blevins' effort would be far more credible as "pretty close" if perhaps one or several of those respected makeup artists would care to endorse Blevins effort and give their expert opinion that it was "pretty close". I, for one, would be fascinated to see if any of those artists would so endorse Blevins effort."

What I gave you was a name and a contact link - the path for your fingers to do the walking. Smith is a respected, highly accomplished, and lauded FX artist who looks at the PGF and sees a hoax. You want to know if such a person would endorse Blevins. There you go. There's his website and his contact. Are you really fascinated to see what he would think of what Blevins did? Now everything is so much simpler - you ask him.
  • 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

#32 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,677 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 11:19 PM

*
POPULAR

Kit:

I've been in contact with both Smith's son, David, who now manages his training program, and with Jill Rockow, who assists Smith in his daily care at the nursing home where he now resides. Sadly, because of dimentia, he has no recollection of his career or anything about makeup. His memory loss occurred long before Blevins arrived on the scene. That doesn't diminish the fact that he was truly one of the greatest makeup artists the profession ever saw, but the operative word here is "was", not "is". He is no longer capable of rendering an opinion on the issue.

But you are obsiously missing the point. It is the task of those who think Blevins did a "good job" who shound seek out an endorsement from the makeup artists you so love to quote. If you and your friends love that crappy suit,, and you love those other makeup artist opinions, it's you who should see if you can get the guys you love to endorse the suit recreation you love. My bet is you don't want to seek out those endorsements because you secretly know the other makeup artists will likely tear Blevins work apart with ferocious intensity.

It's a joke, and that's being kind to Blevins.

You see,if you are ever going to get your "proof of a hoax" into one coherent and final proof, you have to pull all these elements together in your formal proof. That's what I've been saying for years now. You can't pull all the elements together into one coherent and final proof. Sooner of later, you're going to have to pull it together, or you'll just fade away as a person who once made a lot of noise.

Anyways, thanks for clearing up that you don't know any professional makeup artist who will endorse Blevins' work as "good".

Bill
  • 7
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#33 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,183 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 11:37 PM

Good points, Bill. :)


Bill wrote:

My bet is you don't want to seek out those endorsements because you secretly know the other makeup artists will likely tear Blevins work apart with ferocious intensity.


Or...they may tear the 'Blevins Beast' apart with ferocious laughter... :lol:
  • 0

                 PattyFace4_zps6f24d0b4.jpg


#34 Wookie73

Wookie73

    Booger

  • Banned
  • 90 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 01:31 AM

I didn't know that about **** Smith..... :( that makes me sad. he was an icon ....

Edited by Wookie73, 10 February 2012 - 01:31 AM.

  • 0

#35 roguefooter

roguefooter

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,860 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 02:13 AM

There are some aspects of the hoax theory that are plausible enough for someone to conclude it's a hoax, I could understand that. However, every time I look at Patty walking across the screen and study the details I just hit the same wall- how was that possibly done? How could that have possibly been done back in the 60's, and by a cowboy in Yakima? Even the professional work back then just doesn't come close in realism.

Some people see something that looks poor and an obvious costume- I just don't see that. I've never seen a costume done with details that make it come alive. Some costumes just look cheap and artificial all around. The newer professional costumes done for movies and TV are too refined- the muscles, fur, etc., are so refined that the final product just doesn't look real. Real things aren't perfect. I think that's what sets Patty apart from everything that I've seen- if Patty is really a costume then it's the perfect balance of good and bad. On top of that you add a gait that you never see anyone in a costume get right and look as natural.

When you say "good recreation" then you're talking about something done on a really unique level. I see the skeptics bashing their heads saying "How could you possibly not see the hoax?" Here's why- because a theory just isn't good enough for me. My brain says it's plausible but my eyes say no way. I need to see something that rivals Patty on a physical level, and matching the level of realism.

Edited by roguefooter, 10 February 2012 - 02:24 AM.

  • 0

#36 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,677 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 02:14 AM

The industry people generally perfer to focus on the many anazing accomplishments of his career, and I share their unbridled admiration for what an amazing guy D. Smith was. I knew him personally,, not well, but he once came to my home and we had a nice one-on-one for a few hours, and it was one of the most fascinating times of my career.

Anyways, he is no longer able to offer an opinion on the PGF or Blevins work, or anything as such. But his career and his incredible openness to other artists, and the fact that when he retired, and his mind was still sharp, he wrote out the sum of his career knowledge in the trainig course his son now administers, and it is without doubt the finest source of training any aspiring makeup artist could have. Offhand, I can't think of any other makeup artist who literally put his whole career's worth of knowledge and techniques together as a formal package for the generations of artists to come. So his incredible knowledge will always be with us, and will never be lost.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#37 gershake

gershake

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:56 AM

Poll options not sufficient. Undecided about the PGF (currently... 65 % proponent or so :)), good recreation would lower that percentage.
  • 0
"Me and my people break bread, sit and smoke, the conversation rich, but that depends on what you consider broke" - Talib Kweli

"a pack of dogs and cigarettes" - Jack White

#38 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,682 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 03:22 PM

Kit:

I've been in contact with both Smith's son, David, who now manages his training program, and with Jill Rockow, who assists Smith in his daily care at the nursing home where he now resides. Sadly, because of dimentia, he has no recollection of his career or anything about makeup. His memory loss occurred long before Blevins arrived on the scene. That doesn't diminish the fact that he was truly one of the greatest makeup artists the profession ever saw, but the operative word here is "was", not "is". He is no longer capable of rendering an opinion on the issue.


That's very sad. Smith did not have dementia here (38:36)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTL7sR2E8p4

But you are obsiously missing the point. It is the task of those who think Blevins did a "good job" who shound seek out an endorsement from the makeup artists you so love to quote. If you and your friends love that crappy suit,, and you love those other makeup artist opinions, it's you who should see if you can get the guys you love to endorse the suit recreation you love. My bet is you don't want to seek out those endorsements because you secretly know the other makeup artists will likely tear Blevins work apart with ferocious intensity.

It's a joke, and that's being kind to Blevins.


Well, Bill, the task was on your mind, so I provided you with information in an effort to get your answer that you were looking for. If it was my task to do so, it was not one that was on my mind, as I have far more important tasks of the face-melting sort to deal with now. If an FX guy who thinks the PGF is a hoax based on looking at the film mocked Blevins effort, it wouldn't bother me at all. Why don't you understand that? That's strange. If the best FX people think Patty looks like an obvious suit, I expect them to think Blevins' suit looks even more so. It looks like a suit that a guy with no experience made. What is very interesting to me about it is that he was able to match Patty's dimensions and proportions.

Do you bet that I don't want to find out for myself. Excellent. You have a tendency to not have a clue what you're talking about. Social media is fun and convenient. This is a copypaste of the message I just sent John Vulich on my friends list on Facebook the moment I read your quote above...

Hey, John. Quick question - A guy I know in Kentucky spent three days and $242 dollars trying to recreate Patty from the PGF. Can you have a look and tell me what you would grade the effort from an FX artist point of view? He has no experience in suit making whatsoever, but I think he did a pretty good job in matching the dimensions and proportions of Patty.

Posted Image


Posted Image

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_f_GsT2foo

Here's a close-up look...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eexpc1fdX44

Have a good one and thanks, man.


KK

I'll let you know when he gets back to me.

You see,if you are ever going to get your "proof of a hoax" into one coherent and final proof, you have to pull all these elements together in your formal proof. That's what I've been saying for years now. You can't pull all the elements together into one coherent and final proof. Sooner of later, you're going to have to pull it together, or you'll just fade away as a person who once made a lot of noise.

Anyways, thanks for clearing up that you don't know any professional makeup artist who will endorse Blevins' work as "good".

Bill


I'll settle for the suit and confessions and explanation from the source and you can come to me and see how I feel about letting you have access to it. Following the source works and those who stick to the film can go right ahead and continue doing so.

Edited by kitakaze, 10 February 2012 - 03:44 PM.

  • 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

#39 Crowlogic

Crowlogic

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,159 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 03:30 PM

Blevins head is still bigger than Patty's. I don't think you can stick a human head in Patty. Morris couldn't and Blevins either got it wrong or couldn't make it happen at all.
  • 0

#40 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,677 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 03:37 PM

Kit:

As I've said many a time, good luck doing your thing, and I'll do mine.

Time will tell who's on the right track and what the real truth of the film is.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/