Jump to content


Photo

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3371 replies to this topic

#1 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 29 September 2010 - 10:17 PM

To double the initial efforts of the ‘popular’ thread, I’ll start with 4:

1.) The footage has been debated about 1 million times more than any known hoax.
2.) The only 2 people in the world who always said they were present said that it is not a hoax.
3.) Video production techniques, 43 years later, cannot replicate the authenticity of the subject.
4.) Countless attempts to debunk the film have been unsuccessful.
  • 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...

 

 


#2 Crowlogic

Crowlogic

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,213 posts

Posted 29 September 2010 - 10:26 PM

The film itself is the only reason I don't think it's a hoax.
  • 0

#3 Kerchak

Kerchak

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 29 September 2010 - 11:44 PM

I've never seen any bipedal ape/apeman/bigfoot suit look anywhere near as convincing as that to this day.......and it was taken 40 years and more ago. It just doesn't look or move like a 'man in a suit' as far as I'm concerned. It looks fluid and natural and at home in it's enviroment.
  • 0
""My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film (Patterson Gimlin Film) would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."" - Dr Donald W. Grieve, London 1972.

#4 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 03:49 PM

I agree. I went back to the film again to look for football shoulder pads and I just don't see any. We wore football shoulder pads in the 70's. They didn't move like Patty's shoulders move then and, after watching about 10,000 football games, I don't think shoulder pads move that way, even to this day.

There seem to be countless reasons, pertaining to what we see in the film, that make it believable and the reasons put forth not to believe it are generally along the lines of: 'Oh! Roger borrowed some money' or; 'We don't understand why Bob G had Bob H's horse.' Who really cares about that? I don't see those types of things as being any kind of proof one way or the other.
  • 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...

 

 


#5 Splash7

Splash7

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,186 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 03:57 PM

I have many reasons to believe it is real. The one that gets me best, is that Patty has boobs. Why in the world would anyone take the extra trouble to put breasts on a costume?

This was 1967. The Women's movement was just getting started. I don't believe any costume maker, including Roger Patterson was trying to be that PC. ;)
  • 0
Skeptical Proponent, thank you very much!

#6 fenris

fenris

    Oh Mah

  • Banned
  • 598 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 04:52 PM

To double the initial efforts of the ‘popular’ thread, I’ll start with 4:

1.) The footage has been debated about 1 million times more than any known hoax.
2.) The only 2 people in the world who always said they were present said that it is not a hoax.
3.) Video production techniques, 43 years later, cannot replicate the authenticity of the subject.
4.) Countless attempts to debunk the film have been unsuccessful.



As I've said, inconclusive now, inconclusive then, always will be.
  • 0
Enter the Wolf, "Out beyond the ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing" sang Rumi, "There is a field. I'll meet you there."

#7 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 30 September 2010 - 05:10 PM

As I've said, inconclusive now, inconclusive then, always will be.

So, can we put that down as a 'maybe'?? Conclusions have already been made by 99% percent of the people who have seen it. I think that if it was a hoax then, there should be enough information in the film to prove that.

Edited by xspider1, 30 September 2010 - 05:44 PM.

  • 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...

 

 


#8 nycBig

nycBig

    Wildman

  • Inactive
  • 234 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 11:47 AM

I have many reasons to believe it is real. The one that gets me best, is that Patty has boobs. Why in the world would anyone take the extra trouble to put breasts on a costume?

This was 1967. The Women's movement was just getting started. I don't believe any costume maker, including Roger Patterson was trying to be that PC. ;)


the boob thing has been explained by the illustration in Roger's book that shows a bf with boobs.
  • 0
Debunked Kitakaze's Village People theory and Kettle Falls stomper theory and fake fur confiscated by Canadian Customs story.

Shut down the Two Reasons thread for five days.

#9 Colossus

Colossus

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,037 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 11:59 AM

Why make things more complex than they have to be?
  • 0
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -Hamlet

If it ain't obvious, it ain't evidence.

Sasquatch, moving at over 2910 feet per second since 2010.

#10 Incorrigible1

Incorrigible1

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 7,102 posts

Posted 01 October 2010 - 12:52 PM

Because Roger missed his calling as the first brain surgeon in space.
  • 0
In his life, he spoke but rarely
In his mind he cried for light
Painting perceptions trying to capture
That which he saw in his questioning strife

#11 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 04 October 2010 - 08:19 PM

Does anyone know if there is a larger stabilized version of the PGF than this ~> http://www.bigfooten...k_davis_pgf.gif ?? From what I understand the original film resolution to be; 216 pixels high seems tiny. Thx

2 days later - oops, I just realized that the Subject is only a fraction of the frame! :rolleyes: So, maybe that's all we get. Although, it would be interesting to see a new, best possible, stabilized version done today.

I still don't see how the legs and arms, etc. could possibly be fake. And, since nobody can, or will, re-create anything like the PGF Creature, that sort of rests the case for me... Who signed what or, who went where is usually personal stuff.

Attached Files


Edited by xspider1, 06 October 2010 - 07:15 PM.

  • 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...

 

 


#12 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 06 October 2010 - 07:02 PM

The above image is a very cool (imo) and sort of weird 'movie' if you click it. :B Peace
  • 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...

 

 


#13 Kerchak

Kerchak

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 08 October 2010 - 12:57 AM

"" Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax""

I know what men in bipedal ape suits look like.

Here is Hollywood's finest from 1976:

Posted Image
  • 0
""My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film (Patterson Gimlin Film) would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."" - Dr Donald W. Grieve, London 1972.

#14 Colossus

Colossus

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,037 posts

Posted 08 October 2010 - 07:13 AM

No kidding I was thinking about this this morning. I had the 1977 King Kong and that horrible sequel running through my head. I thought, "PGF looked better than that."
  • 0
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -Hamlet

If it ain't obvious, it ain't evidence.

Sasquatch, moving at over 2910 feet per second since 2010.

#15 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,728 posts

Posted 08 October 2010 - 11:26 AM

Great picture of the 1976 Kong.

Notice the size of the head in relation to the body. The reality of makeup and creature stuff is that when we start with a human inside, we cannot subtract any of the human features or anatomy to reshape the creature, we can only add and try to achieve a rearranged look with those additions. So to get a gorilla/ape like head, we have to add and the head becomes quite large. Patty's head is quite small and compact for the body mass, which pretty much challenges any suit maker to achieve. Even the best of the 70's would struggle with that challenge.

Bill
  • 1
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#16 Drew

Drew

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,497 posts

Posted 08 October 2010 - 12:42 PM

Patty's head is quite small and compact for the body mass...
Bill


Do you have any figures on this?

Also, Do you know of any Gorilla suits that have heads of the same proportion as Patty?


Posted Image
Posted Image
  • 0

#17 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 08 October 2010 - 07:27 PM

I know that drawing lines on pictures is considered taboo by some but; here's a figure that might help:

Attached File  head-size.JPG   35.22KB   2 downloads
  • 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...

 

 


#18 Kerchak

Kerchak

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 09 October 2010 - 12:02 AM

Great picture of the 1976 Kong.

Notice the size of the head in relation to the body. The reality of makeup and creature stuff is that when we start with a human inside, we cannot subtract any of the human features or anatomy to reshape the creature, we can only add and try to achieve a rearranged look with those additions. So to get a gorilla/ape like head, we have to add and the head becomes quite large. Patty's head is quite small and compact for the body mass, which pretty much challenges any suit maker to achieve. Even the best of the 70's would struggle with that challenge.

Bill


I agree Bill. The head thing always stood out in those old ape/apemen suits. Here are two more where the heads are noticably huge compared to the body width.

2001 apeman from the late 1960s:

Posted Image

Harry Bigfoot from the late 1980s:

Posted Image

I've always thought that Patty's head size, her large shoulder span and overall defined bulk/mass and the lack of long shaggy hair hiding everything is something I've never seen in a bipedal ape/bigfoot suit.
  • 0
""My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film (Patterson Gimlin Film) would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."" - Dr Donald W. Grieve, London 1972.

#19 Kerchak

Kerchak

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 09 October 2010 - 02:02 AM

Posted Image


Here is the same suit from another angle.

The head looks massive compared to the body:

Posted Image

Edited by Kerchak, 09 October 2010 - 02:02 AM.

  • 0
""My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film (Patterson Gimlin Film) would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."" - Dr Donald W. Grieve, London 1972.

#20 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,203 posts

Posted 09 October 2010 - 11:36 PM

That is an excellent observation about the head size. It's one of those things that anyone can see but maybe not put their finger on. Thanks people! I guess this would be considered an extreme example ~> haha

Attached File  big-head.JPG   16.3KB   7 downloads
  • 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...