Jump to content
Guest

Initial Reaction To The Pgf

Recommended Posts

dmaker

'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.

I'm not surprised. In fact I am quite happy that science teachers don't talk about Bigfoot. The last thing we want them doing is teaching myth as reality.

Oh look, Sweaty found a dictionary, what's next some crayon circles?

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Thanks, Sweaty.  The PGf detractors don't seem to have anything 'Scientific' to show or say in regard to the film.  All we hear is: 'It looks like a suit'What 'suit' it supposedly looks like, doesn't seem to matter. 

 

dmaker:  If you are so convinced that Bigfoot is nothing more than a myth then why try to make fun of the subject on a Bigfoot forum?  Show us the Science (or, anything else) that proves the PGf to be a fake or, cue the crickets.  :B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thanks, Sweaty.  The PGf detractors don't seem to have anything 'Scientific' to show or say in regard to the film.  All we hear is: 'It looks like a suit'.  What 'suit' it supposedly looks like, doesn't seem to matter. 

 

dmaker:  If you are so convinced that Bigfoot is nothing more than a myth then why try to make fun of the subject on a Bigfoot forum? 

 

Show us the Science (or, anything else) that proves the PGf to be a fake or, cue the crickets.  :B

 

 

You're welcome, xspider. :)

 

Don't hold your breath, waiting for the skeptics to 'show us some science'. This is the more typical skeptic's reaction to the analysis... :lol: ...(this time, courtesy of dmaker)...

 

"Oh look, Sweaty found a dictionary, what's next some crayon circles?"

 

 

Here are a couple of challenges for you, dmaker... :popcorn: ....try showing why Bob Heironimus does not match/fit "Bob Heironimus-in-a-suit"....(you can use all the crayons, shoulder padding, pillows, and 'fairy dust', as you like)...

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Bob%20and%20Patty%20Four/BobPattyArmComp15B_zps94879f53.jpg

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Bob%20and%20Patty%20Four/F372-BobHComp11.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Where are the peer reviewed journal articles dealing with the PGF? Oh, they don't exist? Ok, let's stop using the word "science" so liberally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Here is the definition of the word 'peer', dmaker... :) ...

 

"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...feel free to review it....and point-out where, and to what extent, there are any significant errors in the analysis.

 

 

Also....I will continue to use the word 'science'...and continue to do scientific analysis on this Film. And, you can continue doing nothing. :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Thanks, but no thanks Sweaty. I'll await analysis by qualified and accredited scientists. No offense intended. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Apparently you don't understand the purpose behind this Forum, dmaker. It's here for anyone, and everyone, to put their thoughts into discussing and analyzing the evidence for/against Bigfoot's existence.

 

It is not one of these...

 

http://www.scientificjournals.org/

 

 

As I've been saying....(and doing).....more 'Science' is on the way. What that scientific analysis means to you, buddy.....is irrelevant to me. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

That's no problem, I understand that. I would love to discuss the scientific evidence for/against Patty. I just prefer to discuss real science, not science according to Sweaty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thanks, but no thanks Sweaty. I'll await analysis by qualified and accredited scientists. No offense intended. 

 

 

dmaker wrote:

I would love to discuss the scientific evidence for/against Patty

 

 

 

Another skeptic contradicting himself. :lol:

 

 

Apparently you don't understand the purpose behind this Forum, dmaker. It's here for anyone, and everyone, to put their thoughts into discussing and analyzing the evidence for/against Bigfoot's existence.

 

 

dmaker wrote:

I just prefer to discuss real science, not science according to Sweaty.

 

 

 

A real comparison....of real subjects...

 

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Bob%20and%20Patty%20Four/F372-BobHComp11.jpg

 

 

...that dmaker really can't do anything about. Real funny.... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Where are the peer reviewed journal articles indicating how the PGf could have been faked, dmaker?  There are none of those either right?  So; at this point, I don't see how the lack of peer reviewed journal articles about the PGf means anything, either way.  Believe it or not, there are lots of real things in the world for which no peer reviewed journal article has ever been written.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I first saw stills in the Argosy Magazine Ivan T. Sanderson article and it excited me. That was the February 1968 edition so I was a Junior in High School. I'd been interested in the subject since about '63 when Boy's Life ran a story on the road building project when Jerry Crew found and cast the print by his Cat.

I never really had any doubt after that. There was so much detail, the musculature, the breasts. I'd seen what Hollywood did with ape costumes, even Planet of the Apes, which was released in the same month, was nothing like this. Also,and this is very subjective, Patty simply fit the environment surrounding her as would a bear, elk, or other native animal.

When I first saw the actual film it was anti-climactic because I can't remember exactly when it was, sometime within the next year I suppose.

 

This is similar to my introduction to the Patterson film. I tended to think sasquatch did exist prior to the Argosy Magazine reveal, primarily because of the writings of Ivan Sanderson and my earlier interest in the yeti. I was at the Commerce Street Newsstand in downtown Dallas when I saw the cover of the Argosy and I was so excited I ran to the nearest pay phone to phone my dad with the news. I was 17.

 

I found the color photos of the back of the retreating sasquatch amazing, with muscle detail, with that contracting calf muscle. However, I still remember not being as impressed with the image as it turned to look at the camera. To my eye, it looked more lumpy and costumey. But, doubts were suppressed and for years I would tell anyone who would listen that the Patterson creature looked more real than any Hollywood creation, and I was a big fan of the "monster movie" since I was a child so I should know.

 

A few years later I saw the Patterson film on a TV documentary and was a little disappointed. The image was small on the screen. But I still thought it was probably real. With the advent of VHS recorders, I finally copied the film off of a TV show and screened it for family and friends. My brother, who was an avid hunter and fisherman, viewed it with me once and concluded that it was a man in a costume because of the way it walked.

 

Over the years the heady excitement of the 50's and 60's in the Bigfoot saga gave way to the long grind of repetitious "evidence" that lead to nowhere and I finally began having serious doubts about the existence of Bigfoot. After living with such doubts for a protracted time, I dusted off my old VHS tape to see if "Patty" could seduce me again. But alas, time had not been good to her. She was still cute and I could see why I was initially attracted to her. I just didn't see her in the same way. Her flaws showed. The saggy butt, the crease down the leg. I hadn't noticed those before. And the great calf muscle contraction? It contracts when the foot strikes the ground and not when the foot steps off the ground. Curious. A water bag sowed into the legging?

 

When I first saw Patty I already thought she was probably real. I was on her side of the fence. Eventually I climbed on the fence and set awhile. But in due time, I hopped off, to the other side.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

1970's as a kid, I wanted to believe it

1980's the film looked to blobbish to tell me very much

1990's started seeing some enhanced film work and move more toward it could be real

2K's Started seeing much enhanced detail in the feet and leg movements and muscle movements and laughable attempt of x creatures attempt to make a PG suit and fail.   Adding track evidence and I am strongly moving toward it being real.   I will think it is real until it can be replicated.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

I giggled. Holy cripes it's a suit!

But having seen stills for a long time I knew that was kneejerk, and kept looking. People don't walk like that.

Skeptics call not trusting your only look and doing actual analysis 'going over to the Dark Side.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

My first reaction, sometime in the 70's....was that it was a guy in a suit. But that was based on the coincidental timing of the camera becoming steady, and the subject turning to look back at Roger. At that point in time, it was a little too co-incidental, for my liking.

 

I didn't think it was a hoax because it looked like an obvious/bad suit. I've never thought that...and I never will. 'Cause it ain't. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

(This is a point I have made elsewhere)

There have really been only 2 roll outs of the PG film.  
1) The first is largely in the theaters where most of us in the 1970' saw various bigfoot movies.  In that roll out most had to go to the movie theater just to see it and saw for about 20 seconds  a creature that was bulky and blurry using the movie tech at the time.  Blowing the image up seem to show just a larger blurr off patty than the smaller blurr of patty.  At this time, many made their own conclusions of patty based on 20 seconds in the theater and a blurry image at that.   Since they only saw her for a few seconds on one or two 1970's films we were left to make a conclusion from a blurry film with little detail.  Maybe all we had to go on is if we wanted to believe or disbelieve

Then in time, as scientist continued to debunk the film as a clear image was not available it was easy to convince the public it was a hoax.    That is, the PG if a hoax-- end of story.

Then, things started to turn a bit. VHS became used in the 1980's in people's home people could rent these shows from the 1970's and do some rewind and slow motion in their own living room.  This was esp true if you had something called a 4 head VCR.  Maybe some 20 somethings (like met the time) found a copy of Bigfoot VHS videos like Mr. Spock narration of In Search Of....   or whatever.  Now we could at least take a  closer look for the first time of our childhood shows containing the PG film.  Keep in mind they only saw the childhood show maybe 2 -3 times at most.  Otherwise all we had to look at was one blurry still of the PG film that might be in a book such as Strange Tales or Man or Myth.

2) The second roll out was in the 1990s, TV shows started taking a closure look such as Discovery and History channel and so on all about the time computers were more avalible to public.    By this time, most middle aged adults with the same exposure to the PG film in the 1970's not only dismissed it, they said it was not even worth studying.    "its been proven a hoax"  or "its obvious it looks like a man in a suit" and so on.  So few wold give it the new look like the Dr. Jeff Meldrums of the world.

Only recently do we get to a point the other side has began to have the tools to make it's case.  We finally have Youtube and the internet and chat rooms and so on.  We also have the best weapon:  A very computerized detailed image we can finally study.  The new enhanced version gives us many new bits of imaging information.  The you take people who had never heard of Lyle Laverty arriving at the scene and seeing tracks and many other details to add to this.  For the first time, they have a chance to take in many new and compelling additional bits of information about the film.  What 40 something ever heard in the 1970's and 1980's shows there was a person who came upon the sight and took pics and made tracks.  Besides resident 1970's bigfoot believer 'Dr. Grover Krantz" who ever heard of Dr. Grieve, and so on and so on.

Thus, I can understand why there are man out there who have not looked into the new info who lean on their previous prejudice of the PG film.  Only an honest discussion of facts and information can lead us to the right conclusion.

Backdoc      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...