Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Are We Able To Recreate Pgf Today?

Recommended Posts

Guest ShadowPrime

I am in the camp that says ...

(1) I have never seen the PGF recreated, or even an attempt that has come close, using 1960s materials and 1960s techniques...

(2) I have never seen a 1960s TV/movie monster or gorilla suit that comes close to Patty.

Neither of which means Patty could not be a hoax. And yes, I get that.

I also understand that it is not incumbent on "skeptics" to demonstrate HOW Patty could have been hoaxed. The onus is on those who believe Patty is authentic, to make that case. HOWEVER... I think an honest skeptic has to concede that when the PGF is examined...and examined..and examined... and keeps holding up... it OUGHT to pique serious curiosity.

Beyond that, and granting again that skeptics don't have the burden of proof, I wish the skeptics could at least agree on what "they" think the PGF shows, if it DOESN'T show a BF. Is this some amateurish monkey suit, slapped together by some guys who were very much NOT special effects expert? Is this some "off the rack" monkey suit with a few amateurish modifications? Is this a suit worthy of the finest Hollywood could offer at the time - which suggests, of course, that Patterson had some Hollywood accomplices? We keep coming back to the issue of money... I wonder, how much money did Patterson have, to dedicate to his suit? Pre-internet, where did he go to learn technique? Did he strike gold with his first BF suit, or is Patty attempt #X in a long series (and if so, how did he keep this all quiet?)?

Skeptics aren't REQUIRED to answer all these questions, of course... but IMHO, respectfully, if your position is going to be "The PGF is a hoax" - which is QUITE different from the position of "I am not sure what the PGF shows, it could be a BF, it could be a fake, I am just not sure because there isn't quite enough detail" - then it seems to me you DO have to offer a credible, coherent, sensible explanation for all these hard to assemble pieces that get offered up by the "Of course it is a hoax" crowd.

But, back to the Thread topic - have never seen a 1960s-grounded recreation that has come close. To me, that says something.

Shadow

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
No, it cannot "easily" be the leg....when Patty's arm, and hand, is several inches away...laterally...from the side of her leg...

PattyRVBobFVShoulderJointAG1.gif

Sweaty, could you please indicate on that image exactly where Patty's right hand is? It seems to me paradoxical that you would argue for an exceptionally long humerus, ulna and radius and show an image in which the body obscures the forearm and say the hand couldn't contact the thigh.

Nothing....other than simple physics. An empty glove hand being brushed by a leg moving forward would twist/turn....and, in the film....we don't see any indication that the hand is turning...

OK, but I don't think the glove is totally empty. Also, I am think what is touching the glove is doing do in more of an upward motion from what we can see of Patty's actual thigh in the frame. That's why the gif that uses just the hand can be misleading, IMO.

Just look at this arm. How more obvious could it be? We are asked to think the Patty has the bonzo combination of being ripped like a bodybuilder, yet she has this loose hanging flab like a floppy sleeve and ridiculous bean bag crackless butt...

PattyBlowUp_reduced.jpg

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

ShadowPrime:

"I also understand that it is not incumbent on "skeptics" to demonstrate HOW Patty could have been hoaxed."

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on this issue. Good science does not allow any claim to be a default assumption, or any conclusion to get a pass without a rigorous proof. The claim of a hoax, with a suit or costume of some kind, must be proven with as much factual data and demonstrated process as any claim the subject is not a suit or costume.

To prove the PGf shows a human in a suit, a proponent of that claim MUST show how the suit was designed and fabricated, and in this respect all skeptical efforts to date have failed miserably to do so. Indeed the many descriptions contridict each other and thus cast doubt on the veracity of the claims.

Any claim the film is a hoax with a suit or costume must demonstrate, prove or describe correctly how that was accomplished, to give any merit to the claim.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gershake

Sweaty, could you please indicate on that image exactly where Patty's right hand is? It seems to me paradoxical that you would argue for an exceptionally long humerus, ulna and radius and show an image in which the body obscures the forearm and say the hand couldn't contact the thigh.

Wait, I thought you yourself thought the hand didn't contact the thigh, either? You keep talking about some "huge, crazy subducting line across her thigh" which would be very easily explained if her hand contacted the thigh (right?!).

- Shake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The matted or missing hair claim comes from not understanding what the angle of reflection combined with motion blur when seen on an old time movie camera while using Kodachrome film. If one goes back and looks at some of the Cibachrome images .... they will see that the single of reflection of light during some of those exposures show a thick growth of non-matted hair. Bob H obviously didn't bother to study the film before making that 'Roger left patches of hair off the animal so to make it look like it was shedding' claim.

Bill

Bigfoot Field Research

I've been saying/asking about Patty's fingers that appear to be brushing her leg hair back and forth with her hand as she walks.

I noticed it the first time here on a forum topic where a poster greatly enhanced Patty walking. It was the first time I had ever noticed it. I found it to be a very real and normal movement, but again, what do I know compared to the posters here who are experts in film, especially this film?

Have we ever decided if PGF could be recreated with technology of that time period beyond what the cost would be, which is prohibitive to normal folks like us, unless a TV show was/is picking up the cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

ShadowPrime:

"I also understand that it is not incumbent on "skeptics" to demonstrate HOW Patty could have been hoaxed."

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on this issue. Good science does not allow any claim to be a default assumption, or any conclusion to get a pass without a rigorous proof. The claim of a hoax, with a suit or costume of some kind, must be proven with as much factual data and demonstrated process as any claim the subject is not a suit or costume.

To prove the PGf shows a human in a suit, a proponent of that claim MUST show how the suit was designed and fabricated, and in this respect all skeptical efforts to date have failed miserably to do so. Indeed the many descriptions contridict each other and thus cast doubt on the veracity of the claims.

Any claim the film is a hoax with a suit or costume must demonstrate, prove or describe correctly how that was accomplished, to give any merit to the claim.

Bill

What? It's not enough to say someone said someone else said it's a hoax and claim to see gloves and hip wader lines?:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I am in the camp that says ...

(1) I have never seen the PGF recreated, or even an attempt that has come close, using 1960s materials and 1960s techniques...

I have seen it come close...

89614cb7b93cbb3db.jpg

And while not a recreation strictly...

None of those alone are perfect, but it is key that various aspects are closely reproduced. I hope with more time and funding I can do better. I think it's wild that Blevins got the back of Patty so good with two gorilla suits, three days, and $242.

(2) I have never seen a 1960s TV/movie monster or gorilla suit that comes close to Patty.

I have. 1966...

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigmillion8.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigmillion7.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bigmillion5.jpg

I also understand that it is not incumbent on "skeptics" to demonstrate HOW Patty could have been hoaxed. The onus is on those who believe Patty is authentic, to make that case. HOWEVER... I think an honest skeptic has to concede that when the PGF is examined...and examined..and examined... and keeps holding up... it OUGHT to pique serious curiosity.

I would have to disagree on this. The PGF does not keep "holding up" or withstanding scrutiny. I think it has simply sustained an undeath in the vacuum of information necessary to make conclusions about it. It has always been from a highly dubious source and it has always had an impossible timeline. As reliable evidence of Bigfoot it has failed from the beginning. The curiosity that motivated me through my efforts has for long been not the question of whether or not the film subject was Bigfoot or human, but trather what the particulars of the hoax were.

Beyond that, and granting again that skeptics don't have the burden of proof, I wish the skeptics could at least agree on what "they" think the PGF shows, if it DOESN'T show a BF. Is this some amateurish monkey suit, slapped together by some guys who were very much NOT special effects expert? Is this some "off the rack" monkey suit with a few amateurish modifications? Is this a suit worthy of the finest Hollywood could offer at the time - which suggests, of course, that Patterson had some Hollywood accomplices?

By that same token, should I wish that believers at least agree on what they think the PGF shows?

We keep coming back to the issue of money... I wonder, how much money did Patterson have, to dedicate to his suit?

The answer lies with this man...

Deatley.jpg

Pre-internet, where did he go to learn technique? Did he strike gold with his first BF suit, or is Patty attempt #X in a long series (and if so, how did he keep this all quiet?)?

According to two Yakima film deveopers, it is at least his third attempt at filming a Bigfoot hoax. He has filmed one prior motion picture in '61 and one series of photos said to be taken at Section 3 Lake in Yakima.

Skeptics aren't REQUIRED to answer all these questions, of course... but IMHO, respectfully, if your position is going to be "The PGF is a hoax" - which is QUITE different from the position of "I am not sure what the PGF shows, it could be a BF, it could be a fake, I am just not sure because there isn't quite enough detail" - then it seems to me you DO have to offer a credible, coherent, sensible explanation for all these hard to assemble pieces that get offered up by the "Of course it is a hoax" crowd.

I disagree. If you had a suit and/or confession, the rest is gravy. You wouldn't have to offer any explanation for those questions you raise. I am interested in gravy, however, and want to answer those questions to get the full picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Wait, I thought you yourself thought the hand didn't contact the thigh, either? You keep talking about some "huge, crazy subducting line across her thigh" which would be very easily explained if her hand contacted the thigh (right?!).

- Shake

I actually thought at one point that the line would be from Patty's thumb. It just seems, however, to me to be subducting way too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I gave you my one helpful vote for the day. You certainly deserve it! Thanks, and hugs.. :D

Did you receive the point? I keep getting this *you have reached your limit for the day* when I haven't been able to post a point for anyone. Is it related to time of day? Does it need to be 24 hours after a point is given?

Yikes, I wish we could have more positive points to award since we have members who really put themselves out there to help others of us.

I have several posters here that I wish to acknowledge, but can't due to limited daily votes, even when I have not been able to post one for the day before, or today.

Yikes, that distresses me, I wish to give credit to where credit is due.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest demon

One of things that Morris mentioned was that the man who would fill the alleged suit would have to be really large because of the muscle bulk seen under the fur. Bob H. was a spindly legged well toned individual in those days, but nowhere near the girth Morris of the subject that Morris alluded to.

Bill

Bigfoot Field Research

i don't see how you could say he was spindly legged.???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I will just keep posting this sentence until it sticks.

Proving that a suit COULD be made does not prove that a suit WAS made, and filmed, showing what we call the PGF.

Sorry to be the bearer of this fact. It stands. It is fact.

I will agree wholeheartedly that it could have been made - if I see it.

That will never change the truth of the sentence that I will never stop posting. (see above) :)

ONE CAVEAT - if kitakaze acknowledges that the sentence is true, I will stop posting it.

You are welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Add to that the fact that Dfoot's little project directly contradicts the Heironomous claim (BH says there was no "underpadding" to the suit, IIRC).

Heironimus has described in both Long's book and to me personally extensive padding in the shoulders, head and butt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I will just keep posting this sentence until it sticks.

Proving that a suit COULD be made does not prove that a suit WAS made, and filmed, showing what we call the PGF.

Sorry to be the bearer of this fact. It stands. It is fact.

I will agree wholeheartedly that it could have been made - if I see it.

That will never change the truth of the sentence that I will never stop posting. (see above) :)

ONE CAVEAT - if kitakaze acknowledges that the sentence is true, I will stop posting it.

You are welcome.

finger_pointing_down.jpg

The short answer is no, my goal is not to seek proving the PGF could have been hoaxed, but rather to answer the that question definitively with proof, and yes, I absolutely think I will and that no person has ever come closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
If you have proof, other than the suit could have been faked and the timeline is inconsistent, you should present the evidence, or stop posting pictures of costume arms until you do. And yes that is just my personal view.

I understand your sentiment and you're quite welcome to that view. I am in the process of presenting the evidence in the manner I have chosen most appropriate - a documentary. Until such time as the project is ready for release, I often discuss other aspects of the film on the Internet as is my wont. Costume arms that match Patty, details of the impossible timeline, wild contradictions by key players, testimony from various people - all these things are regular features in debates and discussion regarding the film. I find the discussion stimulating and helpful.

Bill Munns has chosen to release his findings in a report, but has also done so on television. Those findings were later abandoned. Bill is quite welcome to revise his process, develop his report, and keep whatever he likes confidential until such time as it is ready to be released.

Will you be telling Bill to present the evidence and stop posting images of, say, gorillas, until he does? I ask because if you think I should move to a beat you deem acceptable, I want to know if Bill gets the same considering he has indicated findings to the opposite of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
To prove the PGf shows a human in a suit, a proponent of that claim MUST show how the suit was designed and fabricated, and in this respect all skeptical efforts to date have failed miserably to do so.

Why is that, exactly? As I mentioned to Shadow, I also endeavour to encompass this as well, but what if, for example, someone says, "I'm sorry, people, the film is a hoax." Then the person plays you a video recording of Gimlin, P atterson, and DeAtley admitting and acknowledging the hoax?

In that case why would the person need spend a single minute thinking about who did what how?

Indeed the many descriptions contridict each other and thus cast doubt on the veracity of the claims.

Excellent. And thus we treat the PGF.

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...