Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest ShadowPrime

Where Are The Other Pgfs?

Recommended Posts

Guest ShadowPrime

I explained the term 'crudely orchestrated' in my original post. The Patty suit is not described as anything all that special. Most claim it is a pretty primitive monkey-suit tricked out by some real amateurs - something just about anyone could duplicate, and fairly cheaply. That is, indeed, important to recall when evaluating the PGF. It puts the hoax well within reach of just about ANYONE. And yet...NO second PGF.

As to the notion that it is somehow harder to hoax a PGF today...why? Again, one of the key elements of the PGF is that it didn't involve "digital manipulation" of the image (it couldn't!), it was achieved through "practical effects". No harder to do that today. Or in 1970. 1980. 1990. 2000. And yet today's modes of analysis can no more show it was a hoax than could the 1960s modes. It is not as if there has been any shortage of other "BF films" in the past - and even TODAY - it is just that they dont hold up. And they don't hold up not because there is some new way of seeing through them that couldn't have been applied to the PGF... it is that they just simply ...don't hold up to any real scrutiny.

I noted that, for me, this question is one of a pair of related questions. The flip side, for "believers", is why if the PGF is REAL we haven't seen another. Think that is an entirely fair question, but, frankly, I think the believers are asked to play "defense" most of the time on the forum, so it would be interesting to see the skeptics take a shot for once.

We all have our views, but IMHO the notion that it is harder to hoax today - if all you need is a monkey suit and some shakey footage - is a hard sell.

Shadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest masteryeo

My position on Bigfoot I'm surprised is considered unique. But I can't ignore the old reports. The country was new to the white man, sparsely populated and undeniably huge. A relic species could have existed with room to hide and thrive. But I think numbers were always somewhat in decline and by the 20th century the road to extinction was well paved (both literal and metaphorical). The last pockets just may have been in N. California or nearby. Patterson got one on film but I feel the species was so in decline that the flame went out within the decade after the PGF.

I believe that Bigfoot holds a huge facination to people and the PGF made a big impact on peoples minds and hopes. So people continue to claim seeing Bigfoot and Bigfoot shows up in ever widening circles as a result of the myth that still exists. But evidence will never be brought in because they've been gone for 30-40 years now.

A thing which seems to be seen very often on this scene: where it fits in with a person’s preferred scenario, Bigfoot is (or was) a real flesh-and-blood species; where it doesn’t, sightings and encounters are the overall mix of fabrications / hoaxes / misidentifications / hallucinations / wishful thinking.

The more I hear about the whole issue, the more puzzled I become – and led in the direction of notions which were for sure, not welcome on the old BFF, and seem not much more so, on the new same. However, cannot help finding it a bit ironic, that the hardline sceptics’ “take†that the whole thing is (the list as above); is borrowed in part, by proponents, when it suits them to do so.

“Anything’s possibleâ€, I feel – and debate-and-argument is a sport keenly relished by many. Have to wonder, though, whether all the proponents of the various ideas re our favourite creature / wraith / myth / whatever, sincerely believe the ideas which they propound – or whether some of them are just enjoying the sport. (Not “getting at†you, Crowlogic – just a general thought.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I would point out it would absolutly be as easy today as in 1967. Go through the same motions just as Patterson is alleged to have done. Make a cheap suit, aquire a period camera of ANY TYPE that will kill resolution, get a buddy to go trapsing through the underbrush. Viola, instant PGF according to some skeptics. Then you mearly pass is off as you found it tucked away in the attic somewhere, attribute it to a past owner who has died, and we should have fresh fodder, right? I thought of that as soon as I read the thread. Maybe a month or two to hash out the details and we should be in business. IF the PGF was faked. It should be that simple.

Or, in this day of advanced tech and people filling Youtube with home made special affects on par with movies at times (such software is available) why don't we see more? It should be far easier to hoax. The internet would make it easier still to spread such hoaxes, not hinder it. It would also give those who would hoax more access to techniques used by pros. It would even give them access to how Patterson did it himself, right? So why do we, instead, see shoddy "reproductions" that I'm sure had a much higher budget than Patterson had. I know, I hear over and over, "That one was just to show it could be done, not to replicate it!" My point is it should have been fairly easy to replicate and they did exert some effort. Plus there was that DFoot guy who was an amateur and a stunt guy if I remember correctly. Meaning he had connections in the film industry. Much more than Patterson I'm sure. So why did his look so aweful. Should have been easy to do. Hmmm...

Anyway, its just a few thoughts from my end...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

But we've had a couple doozies before the PGF.

The giant penguin tracks in Florida back in '48, exposed 40 years after the fact, along with the previously mentioned Piltdown Man hoax that lasted from 1912 - 1953.

Maybe 40 years ago things were just easier to hoax. There was no DNA analysis to worry about, no internet to quickly spread video/pictures from one side of the world to the other, no digital cameras that make nearly anyone an instant movie maker.

Two scientists thought the carnival sideshow attraction known as the Minnesota Iceman was the real deal back in the late 60's, and then the original body mysteriously disappeared. When a similar bigfoot popsicle known as the Georgia Bigfoot was presented a couple years ago, it was exposed as a hoax relatively quickly.

The Snow Walker footage from 1996 took longer to expose, but it too was hoaxed.

The Sonoma footage and Gable film come to mind as well.

Anyone trying to pull off a bigfoot hoax in 2010 is going to be exposed far faster than would someone attempting a similar hoax decades ago.

RayG

Ray..... what in Sam Hill does that stupid giant penguin have to do with ANY primate film, hoax or real? The iceman which I saw numerous times on display is curious because what eventually made the national scene was not the same one Sanderson saw in 1968 Argosy. I don't think the iceman was the real deal but since it was encased in a block of ice it isn't in the same context as the PGF. However if you want to talk about films photos and videos of primate/hominid hoaxes fire away. But all your post says is that people can be hoaxed. No fooling it happens everyday. But if you're looking a hoax's to pin up there with the PGF

let's use something with initials like remember the WMD's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Speaking of the Ice Man... in todays world, a display like that would have local legal problems, especially if it smelled of a dead creature... that could be considered human or endangered. So why no local law enforcement investigations of the displays authenticity or possiblewrongdoing? Maybe no one checked police records on the circuit it traveled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BCCryptid

Fuzzy does this mean that you don't think the suit is crummy and instead masterful? The chorus of skeptics screaming crummy suit is long and loud. Truth is if the PGF shows a suit it is the very standard of masterful. One trip around Youtube and the avalanche of crappy Bigfoot vids and suits is enough to convince a person of the greatness in what we see on the PGF if its a suit. I don't give a fig about the backstory because the backstory does not explain what is on that film.

We don't see more PGF's because the PGF is a real animal. But IMO it is also a now extinct real animal.

I don't understand you, Crow.

Your saying Patty was 'the last of the Mohicans' so far as the sasquatch goes? They filmed a real animal that is now extinct?

...and all those sightings up to this day, that report an animal exactly as shown in the film, are... made up??

Sorry, I missed your theory essay, I'd love to hear the synopsis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BCCryptid

I would point out it would absolutly be as easy today as in 1967. Go through the same motions just as Patterson is alleged to have done. Make a cheap suit, aquire a period camera of ANY TYPE that will kill resolution, get a buddy to go trapsing through the underbrush. Viola, instant PGF according to some skeptics. Then you mearly pass is off as you found it tucked away in the attic somewhere, attribute it to a past owner who has died, and we should have fresh fodder, right? I thought of that as soon as I read the thread. Maybe a month or two to hash out the details and we should be in business. IF the PGF was faked. It should be that simple.

Or, in this day of advanced tech and people filling Youtube with home made special affects on par with movies at times (such software is available) why don't we see more? It should be far easier to hoax. The internet would make it easier still to spread such hoaxes, not hinder it. It would also give those who would hoax more access to techniques used by pros. It would even give them access to how Patterson did it himself, right? So why do we, instead, see shoddy "reproductions" that I'm sure had a much higher budget than Patterson had. I know, I hear over and over, "That one was just to show it could be done, not to replicate it!" My point is it should have been fairly easy to replicate and they did exert some effort. Plus there was that DFoot guy who was an amateur and a stunt guy if I remember correctly. Meaning he had connections in the film industry. Much more than Patterson I'm sure. So why did his look so aweful. Should have been easy to do. Hmmm...

Anyway, its just a few thoughts from my end...

My understanding is that the camera they were using was actually quite good, and of better resolution than any common digital camcorder you can buy off the shelf today. If you want the same resolution, you need to go up to the 2, 3 thousand dollar range camcorders available, commonly used in low budget movie making, to compare to what they used.

The Patterson 'costume' is gigantic, the main torso is the size of an adult grizzly's frame across the back. How a skinny Bob H. in 1967 (not the great overweight fellow he is today) could have filled out a monstrous suit like that and made it look alive is beyond me. This is one of the critical flaws in most 'guys in gorilla suits' hoax attempts. Humans look skinny and do not fill the suit out properly.

Not easy at ALL to replicate. I have seen a lot of stupid Patterson hoax attempts, and good ones like National Geographic's, and none come anywhere close to the thing I see in that Patterson film. This is not my wishful thinking, believe me, because every time I see a new Youtube video I have a little voice that secretly whispers 'please, please, let this be real' and immediately I watch it and wince and walk away, disgusted at the time I have just wasted.

The Patterson film is different. It's either a work of genius, which you must prove to me, as I am happy to accept it's a real animal since it matches the eyewitness accounts perfectly, or it's real. I just don't buy Patterson having the costume making genius, never demonstrated before, to blow John Chambers out of the water, take an off the shelf suit, and modify it into this amazing creature we see in the video, artfully and perfectly acted from within, with no doubt a fat suit and muscle point attachments and extendo-arms and realistic flexible feet and and and... I just can't see it.

Edited by BCCryptid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RayG
The internet would make it easier still to spread such hoaxes, not hinder it.

It also makes it far easier to pick apart that same hoax.

Ray..... what in Sam Hill does that stupid giant penguin have to do with ANY primate film, hoax or real?

It doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the PGF film, or any other film for that matter, I was making comparisons to the length of time for which older hoaxes have endured. If we look at more recent hoaxes (like the alien autopsy film, and the Georgia fiasco), we see them picked apart and discredited far faster than those older hoaxes.

But all your post says is that people can be hoaxed.

I believe I'm attempting to say that hoaxes were easier to perpetrate 40 years ago than they would be now. I have pointed out examples of hoaxes that lasted decades, in part because the technology was not sufficiently advanced to closely examine those claims at the time of their creation. A modern hoax, on the other hand, is usually sniffed out rather quickly.

RayG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ShadowPrime

Ray:

I don't follow your line of reasoning - apologies.

First off, the PGF has held up to scrutiny through the present day. To be as fair as I can, that doesn't mean it is a "real BF" in the PGF, but it DOES mean that no method of analysis available in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or ...er... 2000s... has been able to debunk it. Given that, I don't see how you can say "Well, a PGF made today would be quickly debunked (because of...what exactly?) but one made back in the 1960s would have had an easier time". It is not as if some new method of analysis has become available in the 1980s that wasn't available in the 1960s, that NOW debunks films, that the PGF escaped, and it is not as if the PGF hasn't been subjected to each new method of investigation as it has come along.

Second, it is arguably EASIER to fake a BF film now. For one thing, there are fairly decent BF costumes now, commercially available (versus basic gorilla suits). For another, advances in special effects and technology would allow a sopshisticated hoaxer to build a better BF, more easily, than was true in the 1960s. There are also all sorts of digital tricks available - not necessarily undetectable digital tricks mind you, but then again, no "trick" is guaranteed undetectable.

SO...I am just not seeing what supports the contention that it was somehow "easy" to fake a BF film (one that stands up to scrutiny) in the PGF era, but NOW it is tough to fake one. Nor do I see why, even if that were the case, we didn't see a couple other late 60s/early 70s PGFs.

Shadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RayG

Ray:

I don't follow your line of reasoning - apologies.

In a nutshell -- I'm saying that hoaxes were easier to perpetrate 40 years ago than they are now. We didn't have instant access to massive amounts of information and people like we do today. You try to pass off a hoax today and you're likely to have thousands of people checking out your story as soon as you present it. One of those people is going to find the pin to deflate your hoax balloon.

First off, the PGF has held up to scrutiny through the present day. To be as fair as I can, that doesn't mean it is a "real BF" in the PGF, but it DOES mean that no method of analysis available in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or ...er... 2000s... has been able to debunk it.

Yes, the film has never been proven to be either an actual sasquatch or a man in a suit, so I'm not sure "held up to scrutiny" would be the terminology I'd use. Neither the events surrounding the film when it initially appeared, nor the original film were ever thoroughly scrutinized. One could argue that the PGF, including the backstory, hasn't been adequately investigated until very recently.

The PGF is still inconclusive, and if someone who was obsessed with UFOs suddenly produced a jumpy, out-of-focus 16mm film clip of a purported flying saucer, that he claims proves extraterrestrials are visiting earth, but refused to allow anyone to examine the original film, and wouldn't give specifics on where or how it was developed, would you accept it as an actual factual flying saucer?

I wouldn't.(but I'm an @$$hat) :D

Given that, I don't see how you can say "Well, a PGF made today would be quickly debunked (because of...what exactly?) but one made back in the 1960s would have had an easier time".

Because footers would pick it apart faster than a hungry man at a buffet. It would be instantly viewed, dissected, investigated, and probed to the point the film-maker would think he's in a Turkish prison.

It is not as if some new method of analysis has become available in the 1980s that wasn't available in the 1960s, that NOW debunks films, that the PGF escaped, and it is not as if the PGF hasn't been subjected to each new method of investigation as it has come along.

I'm not aware of any magic program that debunks films, so if someone else comes along with a 16mm film from 40+ years ago, we can consider that one inconclusive as well. Anyone presenting something made today however, utilizing modern technology, whether it's a jpeg, cell phone capture, or youtube video, is utilizing technology that wasn't available back then, and it can and will certainly be subjected to methods of investigation that weren't available back then.

Second, it is arguably EASIER to fake a BF film now...I am just not seeing what supports the contention that it was somehow "easy" to fake a BF film (one that stands up to scrutiny) in the PGF era, but NOW it is tough to fake one.

I'm saying it was easier THEN because no one scrutinized every aspect of the PGF when it was first produced. Compare that to the scrutiny the Georgia boys found themselves subjected to when they presented their footsicle. Had they produced their bigfoot-in-a-freezer sideshow forty years ago, people would still be debating whether it were real or not.

RayG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ShadowPrime

Ray:

Well, I guess I AM following you, but think you are way off. Respectfully.

Your argument appears to be that the PGF got by because it wasn't given the same level of scrutiny the typical hoax BF film would get today. To me, this isn't even an arguable point - it is just wrong. The PGF has been scrutinized to DEATH, every which way, pretty much over decades - any time someone can bring a new technology to bear on it, they do. It most certainly is not the case that because the PGF was produced in the 1960s, it snuck by, whereas a BF film produced today would be analyzed to death. The PGF may be the secondmost analyzed piece of film ever - behind Zapruder, perhaps.

Second, most BF films offered since PGF don't fall apart because of some kind of deep, intense, super-sophisticated analysis, or because of arcane analytical tools which haven't been brought to bear on the PGF. Most fall apart pretty quickly because it is a LOT harder to produce an even halfway convincing piece of BF footage than skeptics would have us believe, so that they readily collapse under the most basic scrutiny AND because it is very hard to keep any sort of conspiracy a secret... let alone one that engenders any kind of publicity or interest.

But even if I grant your points... where are the OTHER PGFs from the 60s and 70s? Or even 80s? When did the magical period of "now we are taking BF seriously and will seriously analyze BF footage" begin, and what specific new tools and techniques led to the revolution? Again..respectfully... you haven't addressed that.

You also duck the question of WHY it is harder to create a PGF today. Digital format only matters if I am relying on digital trickery, not if I am relying on a basic "man in suit" approach.

Shadow

PS - You keep invoking the sad "BF suit in a cooler" hoax as something that would have fooled folks in the 1960s or 70s... because, I suppose, of the "Minnesota Iceman"? The Iceman is, IMHO, not more than a somewhat interesting sideshow (no pun intended) for most interested in BF. If the owner wouldn't allow the body to be examined, directly, then that is all it ever could be. The "BF suit in a cooler" would have been no more convincing in the 50s, 60s, or whenver, for the same reasons. It was a lame hoax today, and would have been a lame hoax then... and certainly, respectfully, has no bearing on the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RayG

While I would agree that the finished product --the cut/edited copy of the PGF film-- has been scrutinized to death, the free pass Patterson and Gimlin got back then was quite remarkable, considering the scrutiny they'd face today. Did anyone really put their feet in the fire, so to speak, when it came to the actual processing of the film? Did anyone examine the original full reel of film? <<crickets>>

Do you really think if they produced a similar film today that no one would question the important details?

Where are the other PGFs? Why bother, it's been done already. Why no other alien autopsy films? You'd think in the past 15 years someone would have come up with something, given the interest in UFOs.

I didn't duck any question of why it would be harder to produce a PGF today, in fact, I gave my opinion on it. I said, footers would pick it apart faster than a hungry man at a buffet. It would be instantly viewed, dissected, investigated, and probed to the point the film-maker would think he's in a Turkish prison.

And I certainly think most prospective hoaxers know it's going to be harder to create and produce a hoaxed film today, 'cause it's going to be dissected like a frog in a high-school science lab.

Yes, I'm making comparisons between the Georgia Bigfoot-In-A-Freezer and the Minnesota Iceman, as both involved a supposed frozen bigfoot body. While you may think the MI was just some interesting sideshow, the two scientists who examined it thought it was the real deal. In other words, it fooled them. How many scientists did the Georgia BIAF fool? Why?

RayG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Yet no other film continues to be pertinent, 40 some-odd years later. Diss the PGF all you like, there is no other of its ilk.

Hell, if we see 40 pages of KK's thread promising to demolish the PGF, it still won't happen.

Just sayin'.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The discussions that occur today regarding the PGF also occurred 40 years ago.

The difference between then and now is that 40 years ago those conversations occurred between small groups of people sitting together where the conversations weren't recorded nor ever left that small group and today where the whole world can instantaneously join in the conversation.

Were the PGF to have been shot today, the genuineness, or lack thereof, would be determined as quickly as suit in the freezer was. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Strangenstein

Hi ShadowPrime,

Interesting points you bring up. I do want to believe something is out there, but when it comes to the PGF I'm definitely on the fence, and leaning to the hoax side.

Let me take your initial question and twist it just a little. The creature in the PGF didn't stay hidden, nor did it run away. It walked away, at a fairly brisk pace, but still a walk. And it did so through a fairly open stretch. Why then, haven't other Bigfoot hunters (or regular Joes, out in the woods) been able to capture some sort of similar footage? With the amount of cameras, cellphones that take pics and video, camcorders and trail cams out these days, somebody, somewhere should've been able to get at least a decent shot.

I really want to believe the big fella is out there. A couple years back when those fools in Georgia announced they'd found a body, I felt like a 10 year-old kid again! Maybe this was it, the final proof needed. Alas, just another cruel hoax, but still, for those initial few days, I was a kid again. As long as I have that feeling I'll still be interested in Bigfoot.

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...