Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kitakaze

A Place To Discuss Changes In Perception Of The Pgf.

Changes in perception of the PGF.  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

So as not to further derail the heel flap thread, I'm continuing the discussion regarding my former belief in the PGF and perceiving it to look real here. If I could ask a mod to merge the discussion from that thread from post #57 onwards, that would be great in keep things coherent and in one place.

 

Here's a link to the beginning of that discussion...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/45868-flap-on-the-right-foot/page-3#entry815139

 

I am just one of many people who've had a similar change of perception. FX master Chris Walas after studying Patty in detail, same with Jeff Pruitt (Dfoot on the old board), Wolftrax, Dr. Anton Wroblewski (Desertyeti), Matt Crowley (tube) and many more.

 

I'm not reticent to discuss the idea that the change in perception was somehow deceptive, dishonest, invalid or in some other way not genuine. Much of it in my own case had to do with the images that I started getting access to during the 2006/2007 time frame. It was in that time that I first got my copy of the Legend meets Science DVD and that enhancement were being made by many people like MK Davis and others.

 

I welcome anyone to share their own changes in perception of the PGF here, no matter belief to skepticism, vice versa, or some other perception change whatever it may be.

 

For interest, I'll attach a poll option as well to see some numbers on the subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cervelo

Yup I used to think it was Bigfoot..but my opinion changed over time....ironically due to information brought forth by proponents more so than skeptics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

I'm still undecided. The inherent problem is, anything walking bipedal is going to look like a person in a suit. It well could be someone in a suit, but the fact that no one has been able to replicate the film keeps me open tothe possibility it is the real deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Much of the discussion of my change in perception has a lot to do with quote-mining, as I mentioned numerous times, and also to some extent comprehension of discussions from 7-8 years ago being clouded by bias or a desire to find evidence supporting a preconceived notion, in this case the implication being my change in perception somehow false/dishonest/invalid.

 

In comparing statements of mine from April 2006 to statements in January 2007, Sweaty was sure he had found a gotcha moment where in the former I was stating that no matter how hard I tried, Patty still looked real to me, to a statement in which I agreed with Dr. Anton Wroblewski when he said it was too bad about the collective evidence for Bigfoot falling apart under scrutiny, considering he'd love for Bigfoot to be real and was a fan since childhood, much the same as my own thinking.

 

In this post Sweaty thinks he's found a gotcha moment that when I said "Ditto. It really sucks," that I must have been saying all the evidence sucks vs it sucking that the evidence was coming up short as a person who wanted Bigfot to be real...

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

"I wouldn't call April 2006 to January 2007 vs February 2014 a much shorter time frame, but OK, let's have a look."

 

It is a big difference when you're talking about your opinion of Patty flipping from one extreme..."I don't see a suit...no matter how hard I try".....to a polar opposite extreme...."the evidence for Bigfoot  (including the PGF) SUCKS".

 

 

As for you supposedly referring to only, or mainly, 'dermals'....Wroblewski was referring to all of the evidence for Bigfoot...

 

"It's a house of cards, and one by one they're being shown to be illusory."

 

And you agreed with him.

 

Knowing that you would try to twist it that way...I included the post in which you said to me that the evidence for Bigfoot is "poor". That assessment of yours also includes the PGF subject.  :)

 

 

I restored the context to Sweaty's quote-mining in the next post. I'll link it but won't bother repeating it here...

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/45868-flap-on-the-right-foot/?p=816313

 

Sweaty is trying to manipulate the discussion to make it seem that in only a span of several months I had gone from thinking the PGF was real no matter how hard i tried otherwise, to thinking it sucks. This is either straight quote-mining or looking too hard for gotchas and not paying attention, but as I mentioned before, 2006-2007 was a critical time in my transformation from fence-sitter to skeptic, including in regards to the PGF.

 

Sweaty wants people to think that in a short time I had gone 180 to seeing the PGF as "sucking", ie, not looking real. if only Sweaty had twisted less and read more. In December 2006 my infant son had babied up my computer and I was gone from PGF discussion on the skeptic forum for a brief time, but this is from when I first came back and was talking with LAL...

 

Computer fixed. Well it seems I owe you another apology along with a costumed foot in my mouth and another reason to be mindful of the fallibility of ones sense of perception as I was sure I was looking at poor costume feet.blush.gif I guess that doesn't bode well for my thinking the PGF looks like a real animal.
 

 

I was apologizing to LAL after I had mistakenly thought she posted hoaxed trail cam photos. The important part is that regardless of the self-effacing humour, I was specifically acknowledging two important things about my personal perception in regards to the PGF: 1 - that I still thought it looked like a real animal and 2 - that I was going through the process of evaluating my own perceptions, where they came from and how fallible they can be.

 

This is not some kind of dishonesty. Questioning yourself and your own beliefs, your own perceptions, this is not any kind of dishonesty whatsoever. It is in fact the opposite.

 

Quote-mining can not take away that my change in perception was just as real as all the others I have mentioned. For me much of it was having access to far better information and data on Patty than I had ever had in the years leading up to 2006, which is why I became involved in the discussion in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 I came here to further study the PGF thinking I would quickly find attempts to make a Patty suit showing Patty was a hoax.  This is especially after Stan Winston said it could be done for $200 today.  I would view these great attempts and say, "ah that is probably how Roger and Bob did it.  It's a fake" and move on.  Results have been laughable so my perception has moved in the PGF being a creature of nature.  This will change if I am just shown the reproduction Stan Winston said would be so easy he would 'fire' anyone working for him that came up with such a suit. 

 

Can a man swim from Alcatraz?  Yes because it has been done.  Can a man make a 1963 era life raft and make it to the mainland from Alcatraz?  Yes, because they took materials made in 1963 or before and proved it could be done.

 

The more I read of the weakness of the PGF lack of  DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE by those suggesting a hoax, the more I find Roger and Bob    [x] not guilty.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Thanks for sharing, Bill; plussed. I look forward to your third RHI submission, given that Patty's breasts are one of the most glaringly fake things I see on her. I genuinely would like to see something real and in motion comparable to her chest/torso.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

I always have thought that a Biped that doesn't use tools would be detrimental to that species' existence.  

 

Bipedalism allowed the hands to create tools, and carry them.  The benefit of having these tools for protection outweighed the problems of exposing our critical organs to trauma.  Quadrupedal animals have the benefit of their ribcage protecting their soft abdomens from attack.    

 

What would be the benefit of bipedalism in a forested/ mountainous area, with no tool making ability?  The higher center of gravity would make precarious footholds even more dangerous.  Either tools or long bear like claws would seem necessary for a large omnivore, where the largest caloric source in their habitat is insects living in rotten logs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

The rib cage does the same function for biped or quad, protection of the lungs.  The lungs/heart are about the only organs surrounded. 

The gut, liver, are supported by the abdomen and back. 

Edited by Wheellug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Interesting thread.

 

I did not vote.  I started (years ago) with "Patty is Fake"....then moved to "Patty is real" after reading Mr. Munn's analysis.

 

However, since then, I've backed away from it a touch.  Still on the 'real' side, but not so much.  A bit pendulous...

 

More-so than the breasts, that darn diaper butt with the hard lines is peculiar to me.....

I will say though, my perception is that the proponent side has done a much better job of defending their side than the skeptic side.

That's just my perception tho.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

Sweaty is trying to manipulate the discussion to make it seem that in only a span of several months I had gone from thinking the PGF was real no matter how hard i tried otherwise, to thinking it sucks.

 

 

Those are your words, kit....not mine. :)

 

You misrepresented it as being a change over the course of 8 years.

 

 

Btw....in those few months where you "could not see a costume...no matter how hard you tried"....what specific points did you make on Jref, regarding the realistic features that you saw, on Patty? I missed those specific points.

 

 

 

Regarding the topic...my first impression of the film was that it was a hoax. That was based on the co-incidental timing of the camera becoming steady...with the subject turning to look back at Roger. To me, it looked a little too coincidental.

 

Even at that point, thinking it was a staged event....I didn't think that the subject was an "obvious, or bad suit". To the contrary...the subject looked impressive to me...and, a little on the 'eerie' side.

 

Many years later, looking at the analysis on the BFF....I first started thinking it was a real creature when I saw that the fingers, on exceptionally long arms, actually curled....(in Frame 61).

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
 

Interesting thread.

 

I did not vote.  I started (years ago) with "Patty is Fake"....then moved to "Patty is real" after reading Mr. Munn's analysis.

 

However, since then, I've backed away from it a touch.  Still on the 'real' side, but not so much.  A bit pendulous...

 

More-so than the breasts, that darn diaper butt with the hard lines is peculiar to me.....

I will say though, my perception is that the proponent side has done a much better job of defending their side than the skeptic side.

That's just my perception tho.

 

 

Plussed. I appreciate any candid experience, particularly from people I view to be somewhere in the fence-sitting place I once was.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

Those are your words, kit....not mine. :)

 

Are these my words from Jan 2007?

 

"the evidence for Bigfoot  (including the PGF) SUCKS".

 

You misrepresented it as being a change over the course of 8 years.

 

 

I enthusiastically invite you to show where I did that. Especially given the fact that any regular participant knows I have been a staunch PGF skeptic for many years now. I'll give you some tips to expedite the search process. Go advanced search, keyword "years", author: kitakaze. Or however you like. It definitely won't be based on this...

 

 

 

Taking a quote of mine from early 2006 and comparing it with an opinion of mine an entire eight years later after re-evaluating my own beliefs and getting access to far better images of Patty than I had ever had is classic quote-mining.

 

 

Another tip - feverishly looking for gotchas will make your reading sloppy and rushed.

 

Btw....in those few months where you "could not see a costume...no matter how hard you tried"....what specific points did you make on Jref, regarding the realistic features that you saw, on Patty? I missed those specific points.

 

 

 

Few months? It took neither eight years nor only a few months. Where are you getting a few months from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Backdoc:  you are one of many who came here to debunk and found it the real deal.  It's happened with this film; it's happened with the footprints.

 

(It happened with me.  Bigfoot in every state?  Come on.  Until I started thinking, a lot, about people and animals.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

What would be the benefit of bipedalism in a forested/ mountainous area, with no tool making ability? 

 

The pig toss, sir. The pig toss...

 

a0ea.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...