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

SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

Yes, I most certainly can.

Then define it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
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?

You need only write between two letters (no) or three (yes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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
To remove religious terminology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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
To remove religious terminology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

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??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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

2901_Dick-Smith_Oscar.jpg

http://www.dicksmithmake-up.com/contact.htm

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

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

If so, got a source.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

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
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...