Jump to content
Guest

Initial Reaction To The Pgf

Recommended Posts

Guest

Saw the PGF, first in 1977, in the theater. At the time, thought it was the real deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Saw the PGF, first in 1977, in the theater. At the time, thought it was the real deal.

 

I strongly leaned that way but was not sure.  I can understand in that era why some thought it was fake.  But in the modern era with the computer enhanced view of detail, the only way one can easily dismiss this video now is if they watch the old one from the 1970's.  It's no diff than the JFK video of his killing.  Regardless of where one falls on the issue, if you only saw the Z film for a few seconds 4-5 times in the 1970's you would make your impressions then.   Those impressions might change by looking at it in the 1990's and beyond with computer analysis, better imagining and so on.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clubbedfoot

that there appeared to be about a 21 degree difference in knee flexion between Patty and humans...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clubbedfoot

that there appeared to be about a 21 degree difference in knee flexion between Patty and humans...

 

 

I was only six  or so  so forgive the simplistic impressions....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Saw the PGF, first in 1977, in the theater. At the time, thought it was the real deal.

 

I strongly leaned that way but was not sure.  I can understand in that era why some thought it was fake.  But in the modern era with the computer enhanced view of detail, the only way one can easily dismiss this video now is if they watch the old one from the 1970's.  It's no diff than the JFK video of his killing.  Regardless of where one falls on the issue, if you only saw the Z film for a few seconds 4-5 times in the 1970's you would make your impressions then.   Those impressions might change by looking at it in the 1990's and beyond with computer analysis, better imagining and so on.

 

Backdoc

 

Thanks, Backdoc. If I understand correctly, you believed, as I did, back in the late 70s, that the PGF was a film of a real bigfoot. But you said that you could understand why some might think that it was a fake. Interesting; I felt just the opposite. I believed there was no reason to question whether or not it was real. My thinking, at the time was, why would anyone go to the trouble of faking something like this? Looked real to me. 
 
I did not easily dismiss the PGF as a hoax; believed for 27 years that it was proof that bigfoot was a real creature. It was, as you said, "the modern era with computer enhanced view of detail" that caused me to, reluctantly at first, but eventually, completely change my view from proponent to nonbeliever. I don't consider myself a skeptic.
 
Still hold out hope that they are out there somewhere.
 
Have viewed the Zapruder film many times over the years. Not sure how it applies, here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

 

Saw the PGF, first in 1977, in the theater. At the time, thought it was the real deal.

 

I strongly leaned that way but was not sure.  I can understand in that era why some thought it was fake.  But in the modern era with the computer enhanced view of detail, the only way one can easily dismiss this video now is if they watch the old one from the 1970's.  It's no diff than the JFK video of his killing.  Regardless of where one falls on the issue, if you only saw the Z film for a few seconds 4-5 times in the 1970's you would make your impressions then.   Those impressions might change by looking at it in the 1990's and beyond with computer analysis, better imagining and so on.

 

Backdoc

 

Thanks, Backdoc. If I understand correctly, you believed, as I did, back in the late 70s, that the PGF was a film of a real bigfoot. But you said that you could understand why some might think that it was a fake. Interesting; I felt just the opposite. I believed there was no reason to question whether or not it was real. My thinking, at the time was, why would anyone go to the trouble of faking something like this? Looked real to me. 
 
I did not easily dismiss the PGF as a hoax; believed for 27 years that it was proof that bigfoot was a real creature. It was, as you said, "the modern era with computer enhanced view of detail" that caused me to, reluctantly at first, but eventually, completely change my view from proponent to nonbeliever. I don't consider myself a skeptic.
 
Still hold out hope that they are out there somewhere.
 
Have viewed the Zapruder film many times over the years. Not sure how it applies, here.

 

 

Romano

 

Working backwards, on the Zapruar film.  Most had never saw it until Geraldo on his show Good Night America (if it was called that) showed it.  It was quick and it was blurry.  You had to make a quick impression of it.  No real time to study it.  The PG film is similar in that you got to see it once or twice in the theaters and so on.  You were left with that impression one way or the other. Thus, the Z film is just to illustrate the point.

 

I leaned toward belief and then had some doubts but the enhanced look at the film in my case helped me.  What is it about the enhanced film you think most leads you to conclude it is fake.  I might equally be swayed.  For time being I am 100% convinced it is a real creature of some kind being filmed.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Thanks, Backdoc. If I understand correctly, you believed, as I did, back in the late 70s, that the PGF was a film of a real bigfoot. But you said that you could understand why some might think that it was a fake. Interesting; I felt just the opposite. I believed there was no reason to question whether or not it was real. My thinking, at the time was, why would anyone go to the trouble of faking something like this? Looked real to me. 

 

 

 

 
I did not easily dismiss the PGF as a hoax; believed for 27 years that it was proof that bigfoot was a real creature. It was, as you said, "the modern era with computer enhanced view of detail" that caused me to, reluctantly at first, but eventually, completely change my view from proponent to nonbeliever. I don't consider myself a skeptic.
 
Still hold out hope that they are out there somewhere.
 
Have viewed the Zapruder film many times over the years. Not sure how it applies, here.

 

 

Romano

 

Working backwards, on the Zapruar film.  Most had never saw it until Geraldo on his show Good Night America (if it was called that) showed it.  It was quick and it was blurry.  You had to make a quick impression of it.  No real time to study it.  The PG film is similar in that you got to see it once or twice in the theaters and so on.  You were left with that impression one way or the other. Thus, the Z film is just to illustrate the point.

 

I leaned toward belief and then had some doubts but the enhanced look at the film in my case helped me.  What is it about the enhanced film you think most leads you to conclude it is fake I might equally be swayed.  For time being I am 100% convinced it is a real creature of some kind being filmed.

 

Backdoc

 

Backdoc, there are, in my opinion, at least six anomalies; physical improbabilities, and, or, impossibilities, that I have observed with the subject of the Patterson/Gimlin film. If I were to list them here and illustrate why I believe they are evidence of a hoax, it would hijack this thread. They have all been cussed and discussed over the years, but not all in one place. Maybe I'll start a thread in the next day or two, and list them.

Edited by Romano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

^I'd be interested in reading your opinion on that because I also think the creature is odd in some ways from a scientific point of view. 

Edited by OntarioSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^I'd be interested in reading your opinion on that because I also think the creature is odd in some ways from a scientific point of view. 

Putting it together OS. May be a few more days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cervelo

Same reaction I had to this as a child WOW!

But sadly they both will turn out the same :(

B4E3D806-013D-41A6-B6A9-2D10E8DC0370-209

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The Q may need to be changed to this;   AFTER MUCH EXTENSIVE STUDY OF THE ENHANCED PG FILM, THE FOOTPRINTS, THE HISTORY, AND THE FACT THOSE CLAIMING TO BE THE MAN IN THE SUIT KEEP CHANGING THEIR STORY, WHAT IS YOU REACTION NOW OF THE PG FILM?

 

Backdoc

 

PS Cervilo, I think after carful consideration Nessie is mistaking identity of waves, logs, and so on but at least not a Dinosaur Creature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Same reaction I had to this as a child WOW!

But sadly they both will turn out the same :(

 

 

 

thinkingsmiley_zpsd35f2a3e.gif      Well you have been invited to debunk the things Munns said about suit making, not to mention other evidence and you have never done it ... so one thing for certain is that if the PG film is ever shown to be a hoax - you will not have done it!  But as in all competitions .... cheerleaders are important too!      

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^I'd be interested in reading your opinion on that because I also think the creature is odd in some ways from a scientific point of view. 

 

I would love to see these anomalies, improbabilities, and or impossibilities too! I am reminded of MK Davis making claims that he said the same things about, so I hope Romano can present a good case as I would welcome it. My experience has been that anomalies are usually natural occurrences that are thought to be improbable not because they really were, but rather because someone didn't know how to explain them any other way. I would also hope that Romano will be able to show how he weighed his anomalies against the evidence Munns concerning why the creature could not be a man in a suit.

 

The only thing about the Zapruder film that would apply to this subject is the fact that hand wound amateur didn't offer the clarity one thinks Roger should have been able to give with his film ... and the Zapruder film is an example of how people were able to claim things that it was thought to show or not show because they didn't understand the physics behind what they thought they were seeing.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cervelo

Same reaction I had to this as a child WOW!

But sadly they both will turn out the same :(

thinkingsmiley_zpsd35f2a3e.gif Well you have been invited to debunk the things Munns said about suit making, not to mention other evidence and you have never done it ... so one thing for certain is that if the PG film is ever shown to be a hoax - you will not have done it! But as in all competitions .... cheerleaders are important too!

All pure conjecture on his part, very good conjecture mind you, but still just one persons opinion :)

It's a hoax IMO all done ;)

Here ya go de blurry this let me know what ya find!

A2A78A28-5382-4226-8C9C-295C2F0B7304-236

Edited by Cervelo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks, Backdoc. If I understand correctly, you believed, as I did, back in the late 70s, that the PGF was a film of a real bigfoot. But you said that you could understand why some might think that it was a fake. Interesting; I felt just the opposite. I believed there was no reason to question whether or not it was real. My thinking, at the time was, why would anyone go to the trouble of faking something like this? Looked real to me.

I did not easily dismiss the PGF as a hoax; believed for 27 years that it was proof that bigfoot was a real creature. It was, as you said, "the modern era with computer enhanced view of detail" that caused me to, reluctantly at first, but eventually, completely change my view from proponent to nonbeliever. I don't consider myself a skeptic.

Still hold out hope that they are out there somewhere.

Have viewed the Zapruder film many times over the years. Not sure how it applies, here.

Romano

Working backwards, on the Zapruar film. Most had never saw it until Geraldo on his show Good Night America (if it was called that) showed it. It was quick and it was blurry. You had to make a quick impression of it. No real time to study it. The PG film is similar in that you got to see it once or twice in the theaters and so on. You were left with that impression one way or the other. Thus, the Z film is just to illustrate the point.

I leaned toward belief and then had some doubts but the enhanced look at the film in my case helped me. What is it about the enhanced film you think most leads you to conclude it is fake. I might equally be swayed. For time being I am 100% convinced it is a real creature of some kind being filmed.

Backdoc

Backdoc, there are, in my opinion, at least six anomalies; physical improbabilities, and, or, impossibilities, that I have observed with the subject of the Patterson/Gimlin film. If I were to list them here and illustrate why I believe they are evidence of a hoax, it would hijack this thread. They have all been cussed and discussed over the years, but not all in one place. Maybe I'll start a thread in the next day or two, and list them.

feel free to hijack

slightly related question

Has there ever been a survey regarding the PGF and public opinion? Like what does the average person think of the film subject?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...