Jump to content
kitakaze

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

Would a Good Recreation of Patty affect your belief in the PGF?   

43 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Please feel free to specify and discuss your poll selection here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER
BFF Donor

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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...

0_roger.jpg

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

Deatley.jpg

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER
BFF Donor

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

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
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
BFF Donor

"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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...