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

Patterson-Gimlin

I am for the most part a skeptic. Sounds, knocks, foot prints ,eyewitnesses,photos,films  ,Too many of them reported, I do not believe in. If there was truly that many of them  surely they would have been documented by now. That is not the case There is still no

 live specimen and no  fossil record . I have studied the film and listened to both proponets and  skeptics like myself.

I have concluded that it is   a live animal in this famous film. The enhancements  have done nothing  but convince me more. That surprises me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

So....in the few months when you were posting on Jref, kit.....where you "could not see a costume...no matter how hard you tried"....what specific points did you make there, regarding the realistic features that you saw, on Patty?


 


I missed those specific points.  :)


Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

There are indeed many putative reasons why human/primate habitual bipedalism evolved but as far as I'm aware tool manufacture ain't one of the good ones. Not least because bipedalism appears to have evolved a long long time before we have any evidence of tool manufacture.

 

 

 

 

Edited by gigantor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I saw a great documentary the other night where Honey Badgers where using tools of all sorts all over the place, even making tools for that matter.

 

 I always thought bi-pedal-ism was mostly developed to get them out of the tree's and expand their range. If your going to leave the tree's to move around more, and spread out, you have to be able to see over the tall grass the predators are using to sneak up on you in. Not to mention being able to keep your bearings, and navigate. It beats standing up every few minutes to try and figure out where you are. I seem to recall something about many years ago in an early anthropology class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BC witness

John, your statement above is what I had heard in the past regarding bipedal evolution, the need for an early warning system out on the veldt. I kinda like Stan Norton's "snagging on brambles" idea, too. ;-) Somewhere up-forum, someone mentioned Patty's "diaper butt" , which brought to mind the many utube vids of Ambam, the silverback gorilla, walking upright. He has even more pronounced diaper butt, and except for his shorter legs, exhibits many characteristics that we see in the PGf, including the forward leaning posture, the higher than human calf angle in the stride, and the obvious light coloured sole of the foot. In fact, watching his vids makes the PGf even more convincing to me than it was prior to seeing him.

Edited by BC witness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I first became aware of the PGF in the mid seventies, when I saw a chapter in a readers digest book on the subject. Over the years I encountered it a few times in various books or articles, and for the most part these articles claimed beyond a doubt it was fake. Eventually I did hear of Bob H claiming to be the man in the suit, and really did not put much thought into it, except to think it was some sort of hoax. Then my interest in such things waned for several years, and I heard little, or anything of the Bigfoot debate. However my interest in the outdoors continued, as well as an interest in somewhat related topics.. I became a little more knowledgeable about some of our more distant ancient cousins, and some of the behavioral traits of our modern cousins, and of people themselves. My interest in Bigfoot returned when I had the opportunity to discuss a first hand encounter with someone from a nearby town, and then a couple other witness's as time went on, and these reminded me of a couple of incidents that had involved me personally, although I made no Bigfoot connection at the time. Then I found I had a little time on my hands and I started checking out some of the the Bigfoot stuff online. When I found this forum, I was still reasonably sure the PGF had been proven a fake. Then I started reading a lot of the posts on here about it,and for a brief time I was leaning towards thinking Kit had the answers.But I kept reading, and as I read I started looking around the net for more information, outside of this forum. As I became more and more familiar with either side of the debate, it became apparent the skeptical argument being presented here, was just being repeated, nearly word for word in all sorts of places online. It began to look like only one person, or a very small core of persons, had come up with the original fake hypothesis, and all I was seeing was a group of people repeating the same thing over and over again, more like a marketing campaign rather than a real debate. I noticed that the skeptical argument was loosing ground as modern technology caught up with the film, and would revert back to character attacks or wild theories as to what we where looking at, and ignore the inconsistencies in their own story.

 With film stabilization, and the pain staking work of Bill Munn's and the tireless work of many others(honorable mention Sweaty), I found I could see more and more clearly how difficult it would really be to have produced a suit like that in 1967. When it was presented in its own original state, it was difficult to really be convinced it was a living breathing creature, even though it looked like it was, simply because there was just not enough information visually to get me off the fence.

 However, as I read ridiculous things like glass eyes, bent stirrups, and the obvious constructive ever changing lies of Bob H, I began to question if there really was evidence of a hoax at all. Once the skeptics themselves had proven to me their version of the back story was ludicrous at best, I payed more attention to the advancing work on proving it was a real living creature, through the film itself.

 At this point I see no credible signs of it being a suit,no matter how many red lines the skeptics draw, I just can't get past the detail of the muscles and the way they move. I cant get past how the shock wave travels up through the subject as her leg comes down, and don't think I have not spend some time in waders stomping my foot trying to get a handle on that one. I have looked my self through hundreds, if not thousands of photographs of all types of gorilla's, chimps, etc. I have looked at their arms, their legs, their butts, their shoulders, their muscle development, how their fur(hair) lays,and I can find examples on my own, of every single "anomaly" that the skeptics keep telling me are signs of a suit. Good examples of it I might add. But no one has shown me a single good example of a suit, in motion, that is even in the ball park. 

 So I went from indifferent, to leaning towards the skeptical, to spending a fairly long term on the fence, to now thinking the PGF is a rare glimpse of an undocumented primate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

So....in the few months when you were posting on Jref, kit.....where you "could not see a costume...no matter how hard you tried"....what specific points did you make there, regarding the realistic features that you saw, on Patty?

 

I missed those specific points.  :)

 

 

1 - What are these few months you are discussing?

 

2 - Whose words are the ones in blue?

 

 

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".

 

 

3 - Where did I present my change in perception of the PGF as follows?...

 

 

 

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

 

 

4 - In the following exchange...

 

KK - "It seems unfortunately like everything else with bigfoot evidence and so with dermatoglyphics claims, you give it it's due consideration and the closer you look and the more you dig, the less you have."

 

DY - "A-yup.

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

It's too bad...I'd LOVE there to be a BF. I've been a fan since I was 3."

 

KK - "Ditto. It really does suck. See my edit #541."

 

Does "Ditto. It really does suck," refer to...

 

A - All Bigfoot evidence including the PGF sucking.

 

B - Bigfoot evidence failing under scrutiny sucking.

 

 

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.  :)

 

 

5 - April 2006, my entrance into Bigfoot discussion online...

 

 

Thank you Huntster, that's a very interesting read. I'm not saying this to be negative but I don't think it's unfair to say that many here may simply sniff at an invitation to read a BFF thread. That would be unfortunate because again, it is quite interesting. Now I'm going to crawl out on a little branch I have staked out for myself for ad nauseum points and say that, while I've read this entire thread and I'm quite familiar and agree with the reasons the PGF can not be submitted as reliable BF evidence, I look at the PGF and am convinced not by possible scapular movement or other single anomaly but rather a harmony of features that to me make a man in a suit seem silly. Subsequently, I have to take into account all the very good points skeptics make against BF and get a bad headache. *sigh* I know, I know... my problem. I have to deal with it.

 

 

 

A - Did I specify that the PGF fails as reliable evidence?

 

B - Did I make clear that I did not think Patty to look really based on any single feature?

 

6 - Did I refer to Patty as looking real to me not a few months, but rather 9 months after joining the JREF?

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stan Norton

Gigantor,

 

We're going off topic (my fault) but we are talking about bipedalism in early hominids and, in any case, I think the inference in the original remark from Drew was that it was specifically the complexity of 'human' tools (characterised by technological progress, material culture, unlike any other organisms) that encouraged bipedalism. My point, backed by the real science, is that there is no evidence for that assertion. Videos of undoubtedly very clever creatures from various taxa using tools does not make a point in respect to bipedalism and early technology. There is simply no evidence for tools having influenced bipedalism, despite it being an attractive theory. It is more probable that, once attained, bipedalism was further engrained via numerous complex factors, freeing the hands to make and use tools possibly being one of those. That sasquatch are bipedal says not one thing about their propensity to procure or manufacture tools.

Edited by Stan Norton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

A - Did I specify that the PGF fails as reliable evidence?

 

B - Did I make clear that I did not think Patty to look really based on any single feature?

 

6 - Did I refer to Patty as looking real to me not a few months, but rather 9 months after joining the JREF?

 

 

 

My question remains, kit.....when you were posting on Jref....where you "could not see a costume...no matter how hard you tried"....what specific points did you make there regarding the realistic features that you saw, on Patty?

 

If you did mention specific details on Patty which you thought could only be those of a real animal....what were they? :)

 

 

Here is a specific list kitakaze made of features on Patty which he (allegedly) considers to be very suit-like...(after he got a better look at Patty, of course... ;) )...

 

 

 

 

On Patty I see silly slipper looking feet, a bonkers subducting thigh, a lumpy diaper butt, crazy tummy rug rocks that look like a 60's cowboy thought of them, arms that have funky lumps, shoulders that look like football pads, and a head that looks like an oldtime football helmet.

 

Link:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/872-reasons-not-to-consider-the-pgf-a-hoax/page-3

 

 

Bonus...from that same post, of kit's...

 

 

 

Can we agree that the PGF is totally subjective? I think that would make for a great understanding between believer and skeptic. 

 

 

And, the boat goes around....and around... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

As you can see, Sweaty, when I first joined the JREF I made clear that there wasn't any one feature of Patty that made her look real to me, but rather what I called a harmony of features. I remember very clearly when I was a Patty believer that Grover Krantz's description of how a gorilla vs a human would look back at something resonated and was something I often repeated when showing the film to friends. It didn't realy click at the time the same thing would occur with an actor in a suit.

 

When I joined the JREF I also specified that while I thought that Patty looked real, the walk did not look inhuman to me. I don't recall talking about any specific point on Patty that looked convincing to me in the 2006/2007 time frame, but was eight years ago.

 

You've made a number of blundered accusations here that you've been running away from, while in the mean time every effort you make at trying to have a gotcha moment with my posts from my fence-sitting days has backfired.

 

These are the points/questions you will not address...

 

1 -  Where did I do this?

 

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

 

2 - Between April 2006 and January 2007 did I have a polar opposite shift from thinking Patty looked real to thinking she not only looked unreal, but in facted sucked? Yes or no, a simple answer for a simple question.

 

"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".

 
- SweatyYeti
 
3 - Does the following exchange show me A - telling Desertyeti that I think all the evidence for Bigfoot sucks or B - that the evidence for Bigfoot notwithstanding critical scrutiny sucked as we both wanted Bigfoot to be real and had been fans since childhood?
 

KK - "It seems unfortunately like everything else with bigfoot evidence and so with dermatoglyphics claims, you give it it's due consideration and the closer you look and the more you dig, the less you have."

 

DY - "A-yup.

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


It's too bad...I'd LOVE there to be a BF. I've been a fan since I was 3."

 

KK - "Ditto. It really does suck. See my edit #541."
 
A or B - which is it? 
Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

when I first joined the JREF I made clear that there wasn't any one feature of Patty that made her look real to me, but rather what I called a harmony of features. 

 

 

And...from when he first joined Jref...

 

 

 

I see an animal, not a costume- can't change it no matter how hard I try.

 

 

That was one powerful....and nebulous...."Harmony", wasn't it, kit? :lol:

 

 

So, apparently kitakaze never did talk about any specific realistic features on Patty, when he first joined Jref....(despite his love of long-winded posts).

 

But yet, he allegedly could not see Patty as a 'suit'...."no matter how hard he tried". 

 

 

As Mr. Spock would say....."Fascinating". :)

 

 

(I may post a small additional commentary to this post, in the Tar Pit section.)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

And...from when he first joined Jref...

 

And from December 29 2006, nine months after I joined...

 

"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."

 

So between April 2006 and January 2007 did I have a polar opposite shift from thinking Patty looked real to thinking she not only looked unreal, but in facted sucked? Yes or no, a simple answer for a simple question.

 

"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".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Well this is a timely thread indeed.  My world took a major tumble this fall and there's still a few rocky months to go before I can breathe a little easier.  But one thing I have is lots of time on my hands and some of it has been devoted to Bigfoot and the PGF.  So expect this to be a lengthy post.

 

Here in the east it's been a wicked snowy winter and it reminds me of winter 1978 when I drove my girlfriend and me to the movies to see the Legend of Bigfoot.  It was 2 days after a major blizzard.  Driving was between walls of plowed snow.  It was a kick seeing the movie as back then the world outside of Long Island congestion seemed able to support anything and everything.  I saw the movie with the mindset that Bigfoot was most likely real.  But by the early 80's I was not thinking about Bigfoot although open to the possibility.  

 

Enter the internet and modern times and a lot of life has taken place and a lot of places have taken life and like it or not the world isn't nearly as big or as healthy as it was in 1978.  When I entered the modern world of Bigfoot research in 2007 I had fully expected the issue to have been solved.  We were cutting down forests by the trainload and developing open land like wildfire.  Our population was getting huge and technology was /is everywhere.  The secret of this creature could not remain secret by now.  I was disappointed that a conclusion hadn't been reached and that the old classic stories were still the mainstay of the legend.  The internet it turned out was great for old news but less than good for new news.  

 

Enter the PGF again and I was able to learn just what this film was who shot it and how it was shot.  My mind still hadn't wavered from the instinct that the image on that film was of a real being.  Then enter Bill Munns work and the film was further vindicated albeit not without contention.  But I'll return to that in a moment.

 

In so many ways the PGF is the lynch pin of all other Bigfoot happenings.  The internet and this forum did show that research was still going on and perhaps that is what made me look at the Bigfoot issue with a view from the bridge so to speak.  The unfortunate part of this latter day research is that virtually all of it turned out to be as laced with questionable issues as the questionable issues surrounding the maker of the PGF.  The two biggest flies in the research ointment for me was the sheer spread of reportage and the predictability of failure even when so called hard evidence was brought forth.  I had to conclude that Bigfoot being as common as modern lore poses almost assures it's capture and confirmation and that real evidence being done by real scientists further should seal the deal.  But none of this has happened.  Instead we have a kind of classic shell game of sorts and in spite of how well the shells are plotted the always manage to come up empty.  I concluded Bigfoot here and now is a non starter.

 

Now I said I'd return to the PGF and so I have.  What the hey is on that film?  Well it's Bigfoot, Sasquatch etc.  These things were around in tiny numbers for nearly all of modern human's time in the New World.  What they were is open to debate but they aren't here now and most likely didn't survive through the 1980's.  Animals become extinct for many reasons and I think that is what happened.  Should the PGF be studied?  Yes by all means it might expose a myth or it might confirm a bio relic we just missed out on knowing well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

There is still no live specimen and no  fossil record .

 

I know this is way after the fact from this post but it takes a long time to form fossils- well over 60,000 years. There have been chimps in Africa for about 7-8 million years but all we have to show for a fossil record for them is something like 4 teeth. In the overall scheme of things we were probably lucky to find them; teeth are small and Africa is pretty big :)

 

*************

 

I saw the PGF in the late 70s in a movie theater. Didn't think one way or another about it, although I did remember the part about how Hollywood FX experts couldn't sort out how it was done, and also that whoever did it (if it was a hoax) knew a lot about large primates. About 13 or 14 years on I had a close up encounter, and the film was what my brain referred me to upon seeing what I saw. They were the same kind of creature. From then on I had a lot more respect for the PGF which has not changed to this day.

 

Kit, it is the absolute correctness of the image on the film which is why I was so consistent and confident about saying there was no suit on the 'Bombshell' thread- at least, no suit that was used in the film.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

"No fossil record" doesn't mean a thing.  The record is what we have and acknowledge; it isn't what is.

 

Some museum collections getting a really fine-tooth examination after this animal is confirmed are gonna yield some pretty interesting stuff.  Scientists' conceptions of what can and can't be change after something new is confirmed.

 

Besides which, if I see one now, 'no fossil record' doesn't make me a nut. 


Besides which, the case has been made for at least two plausible fossil progenitors.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...