Jump to content
Guest

Initial Reaction To The Pgf

Recommended Posts

Guest

When I first saw the P-G film, I was just a little boy. I believe I first saw it in a motel room when I was on vacation with my parents. I thought that something really bad and important must be happening because of the blurry opening frames when Patterson was running towards the creature. I just thought, "What is that thing?" It never crossed my five-year-old mind that what I was seeing might not be real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

I saw it when I was six or seven. Thought it was a guy in a suit.

 

Still do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoelS

I saw it when I was a kid as well.  Many of us must be similar in age.  I thought it real then, and still do.  While I have yet to see SSQ in the flesh, I've heard things and seen other things that leave me convinced that they are real and out there.

 

For those that have seen it, and got a look at it's face, how does that compare to what's in the film?  I'm sure some of you can comment on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

I saw it as a lead up to the 6 million dollar man part one. They did a whole week of lead ins featuring bigfoot and crypto. They spent a week hyping the PGF as the feature of an after Steve documentary about BF, but in the end it was two minutes of shaky film that cut out without absolution or confirmation. This was back in the day when they used to tease us with shows that were 'to be continued' leaving a poor kid salivating for another week to have his thirst for the unknown quenched.

 

That's why we're all here, except for those who know and have seen them but can't prove it. But who want me to disprove the darned thing's nonexistence. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

Sorry, but I've never been able to see beyond the kayfabe of bigfoot.

 

Still entranced with the backstory though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Good word: 'kayfabe', S. McS, I just don't see where that can be applied here.   I mean is there any comparison to any known staged event?  Nope.  The PGf has the tale-tell signs of being real, as impossible as that is for many to believe.  Roger had been trying to film a Bigfoot for many years and, he did that, one time.

 

Back on topic:  I remember first seeing the film about 30 years ago and it freaked me out.  I was never convinced when the TV shows 'exposed it as a fake' because they never had any proof of such and still don't.  Meanwhile, Science is showing that it is more and more likely to be exactly what it appears to be every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

xspider wrote:

 


Back on topic:  I remember first seeing the film about 30 years ago and it freaked me out.  I was never convinced when the TV shows 'exposed it as a fake' because they never had any proof of such and still don't.  Meanwhile,Science is showing that it is more and more likely to be exactly what it appears to be every day.

 

 

 

And more Science is on the way, xspider... :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Really? Science as in peer reviewed journal articles? Care to link to some?

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^
 

'Science'.....as in....'Science'. :)  (Like 'Patty/Bob comparisons'...which nobody has ever been able to counter/refute.)

 

Good science carries a heck of a lot more weight than mere words. Where have kitakaze's and tontar's 'truckloads of words' gotten us, regarding the PGF?? 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

So no then?

So by Science, you mean Science according to the BFF? Not actual peer reviewed journals or anything?

I would be one of the first to get interested if there was a peer reviewed paper supporting the PGF about to come out. That would be interesting reading. But I suspect that is not what is meant by using the word Science here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Nothing peer-reviwed at the moment. But there may be, someday. In the meantime....more science is on the way. 

 

 

How about refuting what the Patty/Bob comparisons show, dmaker? Can you do that?! I'm guessing....that would be a 'no'. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

two peer reviewed papers are in the pipeline and will be announced upon publication.

 

On the first paper, due soon, one of the "peers" reviewing the paper is a board certified plastic surgeon, His review is meticulous in its medical and anatomical thoroughness.

 

Just thought you might like to know this.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I do appreciate knowing that Bill, thank-you. I look forward to reading them.



Sweaty, I am not an expert in special effects or creature costume creation. Never said I was. I don't really see why you need to personally challenge me with refuting the PGF, I never claimed to have expertise in that area. Do you have demonstrable expertise in that area or do you, like most people rely on your personal perception and what other, qualified experts, publish on the matter? I would imagine it to be the latter, like most people.

 

I wasn't even expressing an opinion one way or the other about the PGF. I just thought it would be helpful to define what one means when one says "Science". Because real science is subject to peer review. That is how the world works. 

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

So 'no' then? :)

 

More science is on the way, dmaker. 

 

 

dmaker wrote:

 

Because real science is subject to peer review. That is how the world works.

 

 

 

'Real Science' is simply.....good science. Science has progressed through the years, dmaker....long before any such thing as 'peer review' ever existed. 

 

 

One simple example of 'real science' is doing direct comparisons between two different subjects. If you can find any significant errors in the comparisons I've made, between Bob and Patty...then feel free to show us all where, and to what extent, there are any.

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

'Science' is all around you, dm.  It's in every aspect of everything we do, see, hear, smell, taste and touch.  I'm not surprised that most Science teachers and such are reluctant to talk about Bigfoot (even if they have perhaps seen one).  The average human is a bit narrow-minded and most are reluctant to have their boat rocked.  It's good that some are willing to explore and tell it like it is though because almost nothing that exists is fully understood and explained.  No PHD and no peer majority approval is required to adequately explain anything. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Very well said, xspider... :)

 

 

In addition....here is the definition of the word 'peer'...

 

"A person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age,background, and social status."

 

 

According to that definition...when I post my analysis on this, or any other Discussion Board....I am submitting my work for 'peer review'.  :beach:

So, go ahead, dmaker...feel free to review it....and point-out where, and to what extent, there are any significant errors in the analysis. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...