Jump to content
Old Dog

Why Fake It?

Recommended Posts

Guest DWA

You're making everything up.  I just go with common sense and evidence.  It's fun.  Try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Really? Well then where is your evidence to support your claim about the costs vs revenue for the PGF? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Money issue:  Stan Winston (Hollywood monster guy who has a team to help him) stated the PGF could be made for about $2000 in 1967 and about $200 today.  Just take the Stan Winston Challenge.  Make that suit for a couple hundred bucks.  Let's see it.

 

Can a man swim from Alcatraz to the mainland without drowning?  Well, now that it has been done many times, we can contend it is POSSIBLE.  Weather 3 cons escaped Alcatraz in the dark of night in the 1960's is subject to debate.  At least we can say it is possible based on demonstrative evidence it could be done.

 

Now, show us the PGF could be done. Why is that so darn much to ask of the skeptics and James Randi types.

 

Stan Winton was so arrogant about the PGF he said it was a 'man in a bad suit- sorry' and even went on to state if a someone from his team came up with a suit that bad he would fire them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Nothing like knowing one will never have to back up what one says.

 

One can be convicted of incompetence with no need to seat a jury.  Good thing sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Make the suit!

They say in Texas, "If you can do it, it ain't braggin'   "  Well, the problem is all of those arrogant people have not done it, and have never done it.  When you bring this up to them, they act like it is beneath them to even back up what they said.  Make the suit.  For $200 you could be on every TV show in the country showing you blew the lid off the PGF and sent the issue back to the land of fairy tales.

 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Nothing like knowing one will never have to back up what one says.

 

One can be convicted of incompetence with no need to seat a jury.  Good thing sometimes.

Like when one says it's been proven that the suit didn't earn more than it cost to make?  Kinda like that? I don't see you backing that up with anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Make the suit!

They say in Texas, "If you can do it, it ain't braggin'   "  Well, the problem is all of those arrogant people have not done it, and have never done it.  When you bring this up to them, they act like it is beneath them to even back up what they said.  Make the suit.  For $200 you could be on every TV show in the country showing you blew the lid off the PGF and sent the issue back to the land of fairy tales.

 

 

Backdoc

Common sense would dictate this to anyone.

 

That they don't do it...means they can't, and that is all there is to it.

 

46 years.  Yep, Linus'll see the Great Pumpkin soon too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

You know DWA, I'm a bit disappointed. You are constantly charging skeptics with making claims and then providing nothing to back them up. In the last few days you have made at least 2 rather bold claims yet when pressed for supporting evidence you clam up. You recently claimed that it has been proven that the PGF cost more to make than it earned, and you have also claimed in the Cascades thread that wildlife officials are suppressing Bigfoot evidence.  Yet, when asked to support these claims with evidence, you refuse to respond.

 

Why don't you hold yourself to the same standards as everyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ Case in point. By all means, pretend you don't understand the clearly worded question so that you don't have to answer it.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I just think its funny that every pgf recreation has failed. The 'blevins beast' was the best attempt i e seen and thats not saying much because didnt look anywhere near as realistic as the pgf.

The X creatures episode , or the BBC show, i forget, yeah that one was awfully bad too. I think morris did one too and it looked very bad aswell.

Thats saying something.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/2655-morris-cow-camp-patty-recreation/

Yeah, trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ I can't argue with you on that point ItsAsquatch. I don't think it means the same thing that you do, but I'm not arguing your point that recreations to date look bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

In any other field the experts would be saying:  well, obviously this isn't a contrived effect but a real phenomenon.

 

But they set their skulls aside when dealing with this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

They have made nothing but joke attempts at making a suit using 1967 materials.  Doesn't mean anything.  Keep moving, there is nothing to see here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Well, we know what the state of the art offered in 1967.

 

The simple answer:

 

Nothing remotely approaching what is seen in the PGF.

The potential suit would be greatly hampered by the materials of the time.  The filming with a 16mm film camera would not have been a second thought.  You can't stop your progress if you suspect that in the next decade video tape cameras for the consumer would be commonplace.  Patty looks great and not having future tech wouldn't kept Patterson home.  Did he make a hoax?  By every logic I can throw at it yes he made a hoax .  However by every single frame I see from that film no he didn't make a hoax.  In those days you loaded your camera and took your best shot at whatever you were shooting.  That's what he did at whatever it was he got on those frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...