Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Are We Able To Recreate Pgf Today?

Recommended Posts

Guest

I admit that I'm getting frustrated about the strong feelings the PGF film evokes. Either we believe it's real, or we do not believe it is real. There may be some fence sitters, but strong opinions abound.

I want to know if we, with todays technology, can recreate the entire PGF without using computer graphics?

In other words, has anyone ever totally recreated the film with the technology of the time period?

I read so much about how wrong the film is, but is it able to be recreated in the same spot with a similar/same camera?

If we can totally recreate the PGF with only their technology of that time, including the horses and the men getting off of their horses(if they did) so that it would be a close match as much as possible. I understand that plants/tress die, stuff happens, but still, can it even be done today?

Edited by Susiq2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest squatchrider

To the best of my knowledge the PGF film has not been recreated using the technololgy available at the time. There have been a couple of attempt to recreate it to prove how "easily" it could be done. These attempts however had none of the believable qualities of the PGF. I have also listened to people who create "creature suits" discuss the PGF and they were pretty impressed with the creature in the film for the time even if they didn't think it was real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Susiq2:

I hate to be a cynic here but the single issue that prevents any answer to your question is "who pays for it?"

I've been trying to find funding for costume experiments for 2 years, to no avail. The sad reality is any such effort must be funded, and of course, the TV documentary producers are the obvious likely prospects, but they seem to want to spend their money more on high tech CGI eye candy than a real suit experiment.

But we can still hope some financial angel will appear on the scene and support such.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

The BBC did an excellent job with materials available in 1987, don't you think?

gallery_16762_17_984446.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Lu:

As I understand it, the BBC didn't actually commission a recreation suit, but rather found a creature guy who had a suit already built to use as a demonstration for filming.

Worthless exercise, doing it that way but it was cheaper, and TV programs have funny ideas about what is worthy to spend money on.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sallaranda

Let's be honest here. Skeptics and believers can surely both agree the BBC recreation (or demonstration as Bill calls it) doesn't look anything like the Patterson-Gimlin (those are their names right?) film!

Regardless, I have watched scientific analysis done on the "gait" of the creature and the film, and using a fit athlete they were unable to recreate the movements of the creature. It was a pretty thorough investigation from what I remember. Not sure what possible holes there could have been in their research, but it seemed pretty convincing. That and all of the evidence of "moving muscles" etc.

Edited by Sallaranda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The BBC did an excellent job with materials available in 1987, don't you think?

gallery_16762_17_984446.jpg

Honestly? No. I don't find that suit convincing at all. It looks like a basically human form with a bunch of fluffy hair on it. No muscle definition and the proportions are wrong (too thin).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Susiq2:

I hate to be a cynic here but the single issue that prevents any answer to your question is "who pays for it?"

I've been trying to find funding for costume experiments for 2 years, to no avail. The sad reality is any such effort must be funded, and of course, the TV documentary producers are the obvious likely prospects, but they seem to want to spend their money more on high tech CGI eye candy than a real suit experiment.

But we can still hope some financial angel will appear on the scene and support such.

Bill

Lu:

As I understand it, the BBC didn't actually commission a recreation suit, but rather found a creature guy who had a suit already built to use as a demonstration for filming.

Worthless exercise, doing it that way but it was cheaper, and TV programs have funny ideas about what is worthy to spend money on.

Bill

Bill is quite right and anyone who ever says something to the effect of...

"Patty and the PGF have never been able to be recreated."

Or something like this...

The BBC did an excellent job with materials available in 1987, don't you think?

gallery_16762_17_984446.jpg

...is simply spreading misinformation. Bill is quite right about the most important element - money. Money is exactly what it comes down to. Bigfooters will often have a skewed perception of the effect of the PGF or the importance of the subculture of Bigfootery. It is simply a fringe interest comparable to more popular fortean interests such as ghosts or UFO's and when TV shows are made on the subject, they are almost always geared towards a greater mass audience that is not deeply invested in the topic. They don't bother with whether or not they can meet the expectations of the fringe culture of Bigfootery, simply because Bigfootery has way too many expectations, and the aim of the average Bigfoot show is to shoot off an hour of recycled footage and interviews addressing the essential question, "Is It Real?" with the requisite outcome of "Mmmm... Could be!"

If you want to see the sum total of professional Hollywood suitmakers who have undertaken a corporately financed effort to recreate the PGF, the subject, with the materials used at the time, the number is...

0

There have been about three individuals who have made a private effort. Here they are...

1) Hollywood stuntman Jeff Pruitt aka Dfoot...

47203.gif

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0699231/

Jeff started out as a PGF/Bigfoot believer, but became a skeptic after examining the PGF in depth. Jeff had a variety of theories regarding the suit construction and the whodunnit which I won't bother rehashing here. Jeff had no funding beyond his own and underttook the effort as a personal project. Jeff's efforts became sidetracked into the usual antisocial drama of Bigfootery and he eventually abandoned his efforts for lack of funding.

Here's a look at some of his efforts...

111copy.jpgdFOOTWALKS-WITH-pAT-WEBcopy.gif

leg-1.jpg

http://s295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/Dfoot/?action=view&current=DARKFACE-YARD.mp4

Next are the efforts of amateur enthusiast Leroy Blevins...

89614cb7b93cbb3db.jpg

Finally are the efforts of Phil Morris for NatGeo's Is It Real? episode...

PattyBob352CompAG2Fade1.gif

896149da772b378c7.jpg

Phil had only a week to prepare his suit and was unable to get the appropriate colour dynel. He did later remold the mask and apply the appropriate colour hair when he had more time for a display (nevermind the CG face overlay)...

89614c22eac396afa.gif

As noted by Bill, the suit filmed by the BBC created by Optic Nerve Studios was an off-the-rack suit which was used in an effort to create a re-enactment of the action, not the subject, of the PGF. See here from 4:15...

This is then twisted by the BFRO into this...

PGFcomparison_01.jpg

"The BBC's 'identical match' of the Patterson 'costume'." - BFRO

http://bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

The BFRO is a for-profit business that succeeds on its ability to convince people of the existence of Bigfoot. They have a financial motivation when misinforming people about the nature of the BBC X Creatures episode.

So the question of the thread is can we reproduce Patty and the PGF? As noted in other threads, the Bigfoot suit from Letters From the Big Man is a good starting point...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_M2XtZR91Tag/TT_dMbJF8AI/AAAAAAAAAYM/ewEzfllJq10/s1600/letters_from_the_big_man.jpg

Have a look at the suit from the 00:41 mark for an excellent comparison to Patty...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jNS0_t4EpI

Matt Moneymaker has seriously mistaken that suit for being CGI...

The sasquatch is a man-in-costume in some scenes and a digitally animated figure in other scenes. The video clip below shows the digitally animated sasquatch.

The film is notable for a few reasons: The writers, animators, and costume designer, apparently did their homework on the bigfoot subject, because the digital sasquatch figure looks like a real sasquatch, and moves like a real sasquatch, and tries to hide itself like a real sasquatch.

http://bfro.net/news/letters_big_man.asp

Can we recreate the PGF today? I think absolutely yes, and that is why I will seek to do so with the assistance of Phil Morris for my documentary film project. No matter the outcome, I think the effort will be educational and entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well just out of curiosity, if it costs so much to recreate now, how was it financially feasible the first time around? That reason doesn't make any sense to me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Lu:

As I understand it, the BBC didn't actually commission a recreation suit, but rather found a creature guy who had a suit already built to use as a demonstration for filming.

Worthless exercise, doing it that way but it was cheaper, and TV programs have funny ideas about what is worthy to spend money on.

Bill

I haven't read that but I seem to recall the attempt was a little more than off-the-rack. The photo is usually referred to as the BBC's recreation.

"The BBC's costume designers in Hollywood used artificial fur with a reddish tint to simulate the reddish tones seen in the footage. While developing the costume, the chief designer said the Patterson creature's fur looks like "the typical cheap fake fur they used in the '60's." So that's what he used. "

More here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Can we recreate the PGF today? I think absolutely yes, and that is why I will seek to do so with the assistance of Phil Morris for my documentary film project. No matter the outcome, I think the effort will be educational and entertaining.

Will I be able to watch it on YouTube?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Honestly? No. I don't find that suit convincing at all. It looks like a basically human form with a bunch of fluffy hair on it. No muscle definition and the proportions are wrong (too thin).

I was being facetious. It might have been good with a sandwich board outside a restaurant featuring Bigfoot Burgers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I admit that I'm getting frustrated about the strong feelings the PGF film evokes. Either we believe it's real, or we do not believe it is real. There may be some fence sitters, but strong opinions abound.

I want to know if we, with todays technology, can recreate the entire PGF without using computer graphics?

In other words, has anyone ever totally recreated the film with the technology of the time period?

No-one has even come close to re-creating the realistic features that we see on Patty, Susiq. :) Dfoot included.

The only thing he ever accomplished was to make 'static sculptures' of Patty's body....and, without replicating the most significant feature....the 'Elbow position/reach', that Patty has.

To date, any and all pictures and videos of 'men in suits'...(seen under conditions comparable to Patty)....are flat-out unambiguous. They wouldn't make a person wonder what they're seeing for 43 seconds...let alone 43 years...(and counting).

Now, as for this comparison...which kit continues to cling to......for dear life... :lol: ...

PattyBob352CompAG2Fade1.gif

...it does not contain any information regarding the location of Bob's elbow.

Here is a comparison, with information, regarding the elbows...

PattyBobElbowComp77.jpg

The comparison of Bob and Patty shows that with Bob's scaling adjusted so his elbow is close to, but still not equal to, the position that Patty's elbow reaches down to....his 'body height' is seriously OVER-scaled.

And, it's in similar fashion to Dfoot's suit "recreation"...information regarding the position of Dfoot's elbow, is very limited, at best....and, as with Heironimus....it appears that Dfoot's upper-arm length/elbow-reach...comes up a tad short of Patty's...

PattyDfootPattyElbowCompAG1.gif

Don't be fooled by kitakaze's, and Dfoot's, over-simplified analysis, Susiq.

There's much more to be considered....in a thorough comparative analysis.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

One issue being raised here is the cost of a recreation in today's world economy. It would have cost PGF the same amount in the dollar value of that day. Ten cents purchased a lot more back then than it does today. The cost equivalent would be the same for us today.

The film posted above shows a good recreation of PGF, but without the hernias displayed, and, once again, the suit is too normal looking. It's the correct size, matched the walk, but does not move under what would be the skin. The suit is stiff, not a normal living creature type of movement. No muscles bulged.

A creature living and sleeping in the woods would not look as well kept as the pictures show in some of the other suit recreations.

Honestly, I was not sure about PBF, I was sorta' on the fence, wanting to believe,thinking it must be real, how could they create that back then, but still not positive, now, since all of the discussion and the feedback from experienced hunters, and BF trackers, I'm beginning to believe that PGF is the real deal.

The hernias and my recent observation of Patty walking and brushing her hand along her leg showing the fur moving, along with the muscle movement clearly seen as she walks, and turns her head, no one could recreate the shoulder muscles bunching as she turns her head and her body in those days to my knowledge, nor does it seem that we can even recreate it even today with a living body, only with CGF..which they did not have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No-one has even come close to re-creating the realistic features that we see on Patty, Susiq. :) Dfoot included.

The only thing he ever accomplished was to make 'static sculptures' of Patty's body....and, without replicating the most significant feature....the 'Elbow position/reach', that Patty has.

To date, any and all pictures and videos of 'men in suits'...(seen under conditions comparable to Patty)....are flat-out unambiguous. They wouldn't make a person wonder what they're seeing for 43 seconds...let alone 43 years...(and counting).

Now, as for this comparison...which kit continues to cling to......for dear life... :lol: ...

PattyBob352CompAG2Fade1.gif

...it does not contain any information regarding the location of Bob's elbow.

Here is a comparison, with information, regarding the elbows...

PattyBobElbowComp77.jpg

The comparison of Bob and Patty shows that with Bob's scaling adjusted so his elbow is close to, but still not equal to, the position that Patty's elbow reaches down to....his 'body height' is seriously OVER-scaled.

And, it's in similar fashion to Dfoot's suit "recreation"...information regarding the position of Dfoot's elbow, is very limited, at best....and, as with Heironimus....it appears that Dfoot's upper-arm length/elbow-reach...comes up a tad short of Patty's...

PattyDfootPattyElbowCompAG1.gif

Don't be fooled by kitakaze's, and Dfoot's, over-simplified analysis, Susiq.

There's much more to be considered....in a thorough comparative analysis.

Have you guys noticed that where Patty's hand with her long fingers moves across the side of her leg that she has worn away some of the hair there? I had never noticed that until someone here did the slow motion walk and I started seeing how she brushed her leg hair as she walks. It looks like a common movement for her to make, and she has less hair there due to her constant brushing of her hand.

What do you guys and gals think about that?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...