What Level Are You At As A Researcher/believer? Why Such Charged Emotions?

July 11, 2013

Grifter, no offense, but I put much more store in the words and opinion of Mr. Munns than you.

On a personal note, if the PGF is / was so easily accomplished, why hasn't a decent recreation been accomplished?

Sorry, ain't buying your story.

Besides, I have never met anyone from the film, television, or related entertainment industries who says "I work in Hollywood". Sort of a generic yokel-ish descriptor of your profession, no?

July 11, 2013

Grifter, no offense, but I put much more store in the words and opinion of Mr. Munns than you.

On a personal note, if the PGF is / was so easily accomplished, why hasn't a decent recreation been accomplished?

Sorry, ain't buying your story.

No offense taken. But I will take the word of the folks I work with over any of you people... YMMV

Also why didn't any scientist swarm the original PGF film site after the footage was released.

The reasoning behind why the film hasn't been dup'd is because in the real world, BF isn't taken seriously. Most people have real problems.

Santa clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth fairy carry more importance.... The BF ecosystem has a very small niche in the grand scheme of things.

So don't buy anything I am saying... I feel the same way about allot of the things that are posted as "fact" here concerning BF.

I do try to ask as many questions and read as much as I can about the phenomena.

Also if you read up about Patterson, I have yet to read anything that remotely would convince anyone that he was a genuine person. But regardless, in a few years I bet someone will start quoting Ketchum as well, about the validity of everything BF. Also if the folks at Henson Production Company said it can be done, I will roll with their opinion...

Can or could? Leaving Munns analysis aside for a moment? That the technology didn't exist at that time to have stretchable fabric, etc............

It's 1967, and two cowboys want to hoax a Bigfoot movie. How are THEY going to accomplish it? Well, it's not a simple gorilla costume, so that means they too would need to go to Hollywood to garner support from those within the industry to accomplish this. Patterson can be as shady as he wants, but without help? This project is going no where.

So let's say he gets a major studio to back him. And they make the suit and find some giant fellow to stuff in it. Then comes the next problem........ we know where the film site is, there were people at the film site following the shooting of the film. How many make up artists, and special effects guys would have to be present on a movie set to make this happen? And yet nobody finds evidence of anybody being there but Patty, 3 horses and two men.

And to add doubt to this hypothesis, in the almost 50 years since the PGF was filmed? How did the movie studio keep this under wraps for this long? How many people at that studio would be involved in making this happen? 5? 10? 20? And how many people within that studio who were not directly involved would have known about it? 50? 100? The whole staff?

Here is the thing....... I'm not going to say that creating Patty in 1967 is impossible. Although I find Munns analysis compelling. But what I will say is impossible is that three cowboys (Bob H.) and a gorilla suit accomplished this. And it's also impossible that if these men had major studio help in Hollywood that we wouldn't know about it by now..........somebody somewhere would have bragged about it in the coffee lounge. Or went to the press. Or a greedy CEO at the studio would have wanted his studio's name plastered all over the thing once it become so popular.

If what your saying is true? Then in this case the skeptic has to prove his alternate hypothesis workable. The best we have heard is the altered philip morris costume and Bob H. in the suit.........and it isn't all that great.

I don't put much stock in photos or video anyhow, but IF Patty is a hoax? I haven't heard anything that makes me shake my head yes. But if a major studio came out and admitted it and had collaborating evidence, like a suit or pictures of Patty walking around a warehouse? They had to test the suit right? Well then that would be compelling.......

Also, scientists didn't swarm the site because they saw the video and ripped it to shreds. Apes don't have breasts, female apes don't have sagitaral crests, so forth and so on......

Edited July 11, 2013 by norseman

July 11, 2013

Grifter, no offense, but I put much more store in the words and opinion of Mr. Munns than you.

On a personal note, if the PGF is / was so easily accomplished, why hasn't a decent recreation been accomplished?

Sorry, ain't buying your story.

Besides, I have never met anyone from the film, television, or related entertainment industries who says "I work in Hollywood". Sort of a generic yokel-ish descriptor of your profession, no?

I actually do work in Hollywood zip code 90028. I work for an IT firm that supports many pre and post productions studio's. Hope that clear everything up for you.

If I worked at Universal Studio's, I would say it. Or if I worked in the Burbank studio's I would say that as well.

I mean can ask you your knowledge of Davinci resolve workflow or high end SSD storage arrays for editing. Or maybe I should ask about what you think about the new firm ware for the Red epic. Or the Octo-copter flight time with a loaded Canon Mark 3. What monitor do you use for color correction? Who is your printer and what color monkey are you using???.... Just for fun do you use Hyper visor or Xen? What switch are you using? What security protocol are you using? Who do you go through for licensing etc... Have you worked on the new Cintiq?? Do you like it??? Painter or photoshop for illustrating?

Hopefully next time you are around we can meet at a movie premiere or gallery opening or just kick it at sky bar and we can further this discussion over some drinks at the pool..

Also I love "Tender Greens" we can have the fired chicken caesar salad and the mint lemonade, I am buying. I will even throw in a cowboy cookie.

Hopefully thats un yokel-ish enough for you..

Edited July 11, 2013 by Grifter9931

July 11, 2013

Grifter, no offense, but I put much more store in the words and opinion of Mr. Munns than you.

On a personal note, if the PGF is / was so easily accomplished, why hasn't a decent recreation been accomplished?

Sorry, ain't buying your story.

Besides, I have never met anyone from the film, television, or related entertainment industries who says "I work in Hollywood". Sort of a generic yokel-ish descriptor of your profession, no?

So now that you know what I do for a living. I could ask you?...... I don't care what you do.. Easiest answer you never had to give to someone.

July 11, 2013

Grifter, no offense, but I put much more store in the words and opinion of Mr. Munns than you.

On a personal note, if the PGF is / was so easily accomplished, why hasn't a decent recreation been accomplished?

Sorry, ain't buying your story.

No offense taken. But I will take the word of the folks I work with over any of you people... YMMV

Also why didn't any scientist swarm the original PGF film site after the footage was released.

The reasoning behind why the film hasn't been dup'd is because in the real world, BF isn't taken seriously. Most people have real problems.

Santa clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth fairy carry more importance.... The BF ecosystem has a very small niche in the grand scheme of things.

So don't buy anything I am saying... I feel the same way about allot of the things that are posted as "fact" here concerning BF.

I do try to ask as many questions and read as much as I can about the phenomena.

Also if you read up about Patterson, I have yet to read anything that remotely would convince anyone that he was a genuine person. But regardless, in a few years I bet someone will start quoting Ketchum as well, about the validity of everything BF. Also if the folks at Henson Production Company said it can be done, I will roll with their opinion...

Can or could? Leaving Munns analysis aside for a moment? That the technology didn't exist at that time to have stretchable fabric, etc............

It's 1967, and two cowboys want to hoax a Bigfoot movie. How are THEY going to accomplish it? Well, it's not a simple gorilla costume, so that means they too would need to go to Hollywood to garner support from those within the industry to accomplish this. Patterson can be as shady as he wants, but without help? This project is going no where.

So let's say he gets a major studio to back him. And they make the suit and find some giant fellow to stuff in it. Then comes the next problem........ we know where the film site is, there were people at the film site following the shooting of the film. How many make up artists, and special effects guys would have to be present on a movie set to make this happen? And yet nobody finds evidence of anybody being there but Patty, 3 horses and two men.

And to add doubt to this hypothesis, in the almost 50 years since the PGF was filmed? How did the movie studio keep this under wraps for this long? How many people at that studio would be involved in making this happen? 5? 10? 20? And how many people within that studio who were not directly involved would have known about it? 50? 100? The whole staff?

Here is the thing....... I'm not going to say that creating Patty in 1967 is impossible. Although I find Munns analysis compelling. But what I will say is impossible is that three cowboys (Bob H.) and a gorilla suit accomplished this. And it's also impossible that if these men had major studio help in Hollywood that we wouldn't know about it by now..........somebody somewhere would have bragged about it in the coffee lounge. Or went to the press. Or a greedy CEO at the studio would have wanted his studio's name plastered all over the thing once it become so popular.

If what your saying is true? Then in this case the skeptic has to prove his alternate hypothesis workable. The best we have heard is the altered philip morris costume and Bob H. in the suit.........and it isn't all that great.

I don't put much stock in photos or video anyhow, but IF Patty is a hoax? I haven't heard anything that makes me shake my head yes. But if a major studio came out and admitted it and had collaborating evidence, like a suit or pictures of Patty walking around a warehouse? They had to test the suit right? Well then that would be compelling.......

Also, scientists didn't swarm the site because they saw the video and ripped it to shreds. Apes don't have breasts, female apes don't have sagitaral crests, so forth and so on......

Hey Odin,

I know of Munn and his work is pretty outstanding. That being said, he has a monetary stake in his BF assertion and his analysis so personally MMMV... I was just regurgitating what I had asked some of the folks whom I work with personally on a project basis, what they thought about PGF and I posted what I was being told. I now understand why some folks are reluctant to posting anything that either supports or contradicts the BF phenomena on here. From now on I will make sure I either get permission to use people's name in any further debunking. Or just not bother posting it all..

This is how that conversation may look.

Hey Bob can I use you as a source for my BF related response to the PGF?

All I would be using is your name and work place. That shouldn't bother you correct?

Also you aren't getting paid a dime not even a wooden nickel for your response.

Why do I need to have your name and work place? Well someone on the internet web forum doesn't believe my hearsay. And would like a point of reference when they type their response on the world wide web. Ummm no we won't have their real name or work place, that would be ridiculous of me to ask them for that.

That conversation should go over well. I mean that doesn't sound like a crazy person asking for a favor at all...

I look @ the PGF and I am not swayed either way, something doesn't feel right about it but what exactly I personally can't say. I am more curious about people's sightings/interaction with BF. There so many, from all over the place. There should be something behind it. I am even more curious about the Habs and their unique situation. But asking any of those folks for any type of video or photographic anything just makes it rain hate. They tend to come of as super elitist or very entitled individuals...

I have yet to see a photo that looks like bigfoot, or a video that does other than the PGF. I have emailed a few hunting guides out of Alaska and Canada about BF. But that was within the last 6 weeks and there are most likely out taking cliental for their business as its that time of year. Its a long shot, but it is what it is....

I am on the "Show me" club. I will listen to anything that sounds remotely reasonable. But it has to be a give an take. On this board its either all in or you are the enemy. Or at the very least the response is why do I have to prove anything to you?

How much flak do you take for your pro-kill position? And all you are trying to do from my perspective is help the situation....

Its a fascinating microcosm of the overall human psyche, that permeates on outward on this public forum. You can tell there are some genuine folks who have seen something that isn't natural at least to them.. What it is, heck if I know. But I am asking every resource I can think of for some info/help...

Deuces Odin

Edited July 11, 2013 by Grifter9931

July 11, 2013

Well KB, I don't get to read the BFF as often as I'd like but it's sure nice to read your posts when I can spare the time. Great topic. Chris B.

July 11, 2013

I'm number 5

Figured BF was real since seeing PG when I was very young.

Not much day to day interest living in a SO. Cal city all of my teen and adult years up until age 40.

But now at 51, I look out my living room window at the forest where I live in Colorado keeping on eye on the powerline trail tand tree line :-).

There is now the 'net, TV shows, jack links beef jerky and all that so I guess it's a fun hobby.

Squatch on y'all

July 11, 2013

Like I said....I see waaaaaaaay too much of a personal stake in this outcome here, often. A little perspective would go a long way. Your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend/children/family, job or dog is not going to go away if BF is or isn't real. When you are debating to the death with anonymous people you've never met, and probably never will, I'd suggest you think about going for a long walk in the sun.

July 11, 2013

I guess this has already been said, but I see "show monkey" too much around here.

Show monkey! No monkey? Go monkey. Doe monkey. Bro. Monkey? NO. MONKEY.

As if that somehow is game, set, match.

Here's an exact analogy. Precise, pristine, captures it all in a nutshell.

I go to an astronomy blog. They're talking about black holes. Well black holes are a mathematical construct, basically. Nobody's seen one, heard one, got one on Instagram. So in I go.

Show hole! No hole? Go hole! Whoa hole! Grow hole. Whole hole? Dole hole. Grohl hole [toke].

Precise intellectual equivalent. Some folks should listen to how they sound.

Then there are some of us who know a thing or two about this topic and want to discuss it with people who either know a thing or two as well or are willing to learn.

If I'm up at two a.m., I'm doing something rich and fulfilling if I'm here.

If one is going SHOW MONKEY at that hour? Sun or no, WSA's right. it's cool outside. Quiet too. Take a walk, dude.

July 11, 2013

Bff Members- As stated before the US F&W service has policies and helpful information on how to gather information for undiscovered and/or discovered animals(?). You call the US F&W service and ask the receptionist and ask for the field biology dept. They have alot of info. and can explain guidelines that could be very helpful in your quest. Let me just say though with that said some folks do not want to know and that is on them. also some folks I know will not post on this forum simplly because of the viewpoint of some of our members. If you have had close interactions with the Big Guys possibly you may understand. I won't get into the attitudes of some members here but I have to respect their choice and leave it at that. As for myself my time of discovery was when I was much, much younger and now find myself in a donor role to worthwhile research group.

July 11, 2013

I guess this has already been said, but I see "show monkey" too much around here.

Show monkey! No monkey? Go monkey. Doe monkey. Bro. Monkey? NO. MONKEY.

As if that somehow is game, set, match.

Here's an exact analogy. Precise, pristine, captures it all in a nutshell.

I go to an astronomy blog. They're talking about black holes. Well black holes are a mathematical construct, basically. Nobody's seen one, heard one, got one on Instagram. So in I go.

Show hole! No hole? Go hole! Whoa hole! Grow hole. Whole hole? Dole hole. Grohl hole [toke].

Precise intellectual equivalent. Some folks should listen to how they sound.

Then there are some of us who know a thing or two about this topic and want to discuss it with people who either know a thing or two as well or are willing to learn.

If I'm up at two a.m., I'm doing something rich and fulfilling if I'm here.

If one is going SHOW MONKEY at that hour? Sun or no, WSA's right. it's cool outside. Quiet too. Take a walk, dude.

Are you comparing BF to a Black Hole?

July 11, 2013

I believe DWA was merely making a comparison regarding two things that are both theories: 1. Unconfirmed by science,and with; 2. Strong anecdotal/observational evidence arguing for their existence.

July 11, 2013

Blah, blah, blah.....BlackmagicDesign.....blah, blah, blah..........firmware..........converters.....blah, blah, blah..........

So you ramble off some jargon about post production and video gear. I wasn't always in my current career field. I apprenticed in a media post-production field. You might be surprised what I could rattle back. What of it?

I actually do work in Hollywood zip code 90028. I work for an IT firm .....

There you go!.

But instead you say...........

I work in Hollywood and i have asked quite a few people from the costume/latex dept about the film.

And then you namedrop....

Henson Company, Warner Bros, Fox, Disney, Dreamworks etc

And the you say.......

in the real world, BF isn't taken seriously. Most people have real problems. Santa clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth fairy carry more importance....

Yet the top latex/costume people in the industry have time to give an IT guy their personal synopsis of the authenticity of the subject in the PGF film?

Maybe it's all true. Maybe you are the IT specialist to the "A-list". Maybe ILM, Pixar, and Steven Spielberg call you when their internet is slow. If so you should be well aware that there are very significant profits being made producing Bigfoot related entertainment, along with all of the other paranormal television crap. Ever heard of a little show called Finding Bigfoot? How about the half dozen terrible Sasquatch movies made every year? Other networks have climbed over themselves trying to put together something to cash in on the Finding Bigfoot viewer demographic.

It would be interesting to see some of these technically knowledgeable naysayers make an appearance on some of these shows and documentaries, and point out the zippers for us. I haven't really seen that yet. (It isn't like they wouldn't be paid for it.) I have however, seen some great presentations supporting the legitimacy of the film. Specifically regarding musculoskeletal variances from humans attempting to recreate the motion of the film subject, and an in depth presentation by Bill Munns that was rather impressive.

I'm not trying to be a hardcase, but when you say that.....

Absolutely no one has said that looks like a real creature, ever.

....and then cite this supposed body of experts who spent time presenting their cases to you.....which nobody else can verify. I disagree with the premise that "Absolutely no one has said that looks like a real creature, ever". I would love to hear more technical experts from that particular era of special effect & costumes weigh in on it.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Irish73

July 11, 2013

Hello Irish73,

Speaking of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny I'll let you in on a little secret (SHH, don't tell anyone). I've never seen SC and the EB appear AT THE SAME TIME! To me it's analogous to Clark Kent and Superman. By that I mean that I think that Santa Clause AND the Easter Bunny are the SAME GUY. Now I can't prove this hypothesis but it is an example of just one of the many things that keep me up at night.

Thought you'd like to know.

Edited July 11, 2013 by hiflier

July 11, 2013

Cool, you should spend hours over at the Santa and Easter Bunny forums making hundreds of posts also.

Sign In

What Level Are You At As A Researcher/believer? Why Such Charged Emotions?

Recommended Posts

Guest

norseman

Guest Grifter9931

Guest Grifter9931

Guest Grifter9931

Guest ChrisBFRPKY

Guest

WSA

Guest DWA

Guest

Guest Grifter9931

WSA

Guest

hiflier

Guest

Browse

SSR

Policies

Activity