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

Backdoc

The politics of the dogma of the establishment at universities needs to change. How so? When we see on a bigfoot show some anthropologist state Jeff meldrum is being, "brave" in studying the PGF. Brave?! are we starting to see a problem here?

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

^^^It should never be considered "brave" to do science.  We haven't moved an inch since Galileo if that's still the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

 

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.

 

This reminded me of a conversation I was having with FX artist John Vulich regarding the off the rack suit rented for the production of BBC's X-Creatures: Shooting the Bigfoot episode.

 

In Bigfoot circles many believers like to pass around the following images as if the suit shown was some FX person's attempt at looking at Patty and trying to recreate her...

 

pattersoncostume.jpg

 

recreatecostume.jpg

 

It's the renting of the suit that your comment on hearing that Hollywood people were stumped by Patty reminded me of. This from Vulich on when he rented the suit...

 

 

 

The funny thing is, that we rented the suit from Bob Schiffer who was the head of make-up at Disney and had been since 1967. I constantly hear how an unnamed Disney FX artists was asked about the Patterson footage and claimed that it couldn't have been faked. When we rented the suit from him, I asked if anybody ever approached him on his opinion on the suit and he said no. He then went on the offer up his opinion on how he believed it to be a man in a suit.

 

The image of that rented suit is most certainly going to be continued to be passed around amongst Bigfoot enthusiasts as if it were a recreation attempt of Patty.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

The image of that rented suit is most certainly going to be continued to be passed around amongst Bigfoot enthusiasts as if it were a recreation attempt of Patty.

 

 

I have no need to do anything of the sort. Notice how that the man's upper-arms appear to be significantly shorter than his upper-legs.

 

As measurements of Patty show.....very un-Sasquatchlike. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Approximately how much time elapses between frame 362 and frame 365?

 

Bigsweats23.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

This reminded me of a conversation I was having with FX artist John Vulich regarding the off the rack suit rented for the production of BBC's X-Creatures: Shooting the Bigfoot episode.

 

In Bigfoot circles many believers like to pass around the following images as if the suit shown was some FX person's attempt at looking at Patty and trying to recreate her...

 

 

It's the renting of the suit that your comment on hearing that Hollywood people were stumped by Patty reminded me of. This from Vulich on when he rented the suit...

 

 

The image of that rented suit is most certainly going to be continued to be passed around amongst Bigfoot enthusiasts as if it were a recreation attempt of Patty.

 

I just remember that is what was said in the movie. They probably asked someone else, not Vulich.

 

I don't think that the BBC show was at all definitive one way or the other. As I recall it was the ads for the show that created the idea of the suit as a recreation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

That same show, the narrator states the 'curious reaction' of Patty just walking away from Roger and Bob.  Yet, that is what happens in nature all the time.  Nothing is offered to explain what was curious about the reaction and what reaction the producer felt was the right one. 

 

Much was made of the Patty Tracks being deeper than a horse "Suggesting" the weight was more massive than the horse but yet only slightly taller than Jim McClarin.  Our own poster on the  BFF Bigfoothunter proved by walking behind a horse why this is not so. There are a few research articles to tell why this Xcreatues was wrong in this right here on the BFF. Yet, the insinuation is made and that is as far as this 'investigative journalist' cared to investigate.  It's agenda journalism at it's finest.

 

They found out in trying to make a suit they COULD NOT make it. So they changed their story.  We all know it.  Notice there as been no serious effort to do it since.  Gee, I wonder why? 

 

Finally got to love them Cherry Picking the interview with Bob Gimlin.  They take what he has said and take little snippits from the interview to make it seem like he was dumped so he would not sue them I am guessing.

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

 

It's the renting of the suit that your comment on hearing that Hollywood people were stumped by Patty reminded me of. This from Vulich on when he rented the suit...

 

The funny thing is, that we rented the suit from Bob Schiffer who was the head of make-up at Disney and had been since 1967. I constantly hear how an unnamed Disney FX artists was asked about the Patterson footage and claimed that it couldn't have been faked. When we rented the suit from him, I asked if anybody ever approached him on his opinion on the suit and he said no. He then went on the offer up his opinion on how he believed it to be a man in a suit.

 

 

From Argosy 1968:

 

Then they went to the one group of people who really know about faking things--especially like "King Kong", "apemen" and other phony monsters-namely, Universal Pictures in Hollywood. There they met Dale Sheets, head of the Documentary Film Department, and top technicians in what is called the Special Effects Department, who are the men who have actually made such things for the movies.

 

They asked the technicians, in effect: "Look at this strip of film, fellows, and then tell us if you could reproduce that for us."

 

"No", the experts answered. "Maybe if you allotted a couple of million bucks, we could try, but we'd have to invent a whole set of new, artificial muscles; get a gorilla's skin and train an actor to walk like that. It might be done, but off hand, we'd say it would be nearly impossible."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

LOL Who wrote that?

 

Tony%202_1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 What does the three toed track have to do with the PGF?  Did you run out of unicorn pictures Kit? Another infamous makes no sense at all critical thinking deflection?

 

Considering your still trying, after over six thousand posts on this forum alone, you would begin to question how well these murky methods are really working for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

From the same article the author writes about Gimlin saying he watched Patterson chase a fleeing Patty as he jumped logs and went into thick bush after her...

 

At that point, I asked Bob (because he was then what is called "the back-up man," which means that he was now close enough to see Roger clearly) "Just what was Roger doing?"

"He was running like hell, jumping them logs and going up into the real thick bush."

"Did you see her, too?"

"Yeah, Ivan, but 'way ahead and really taking off for the hills."


This brought me up sharp, because I had by this time viewed their film (and half a dozen out-takes, blown up, in full color as transparencies, examined under strong magnifying lenses on an illuminated shadow-box several times and projected by three different projectors). In every case, the creature was--at standard speed for photogs, i.e., twenty-four frames per see--as Roger said, at first just ambling along, swinging her rather long arms, not running-scared, and even stopping for a brief look-see over her shoulder as it were; then ambling on again into the deep woods. Yet here was the back-up man saying that she had "taken off for the hills". Roger, however, backed up his back-up man unprompted:

When she got around the corner and into the real heavy stuff [timber and underbrush] she did take off--running, I mean because, when we lost her tracks on pine needles after tracking her for about three and a-half miles, we took plaster casts of her tracks. Now, down by the creek, in the sand, where we first spotted her, her stride was from forty to forty-two inches from the back of the heel on the left side to the back of the right heel ahead; but when she got really going, she left tracks that measured sixty-five inches from back heel to back heel. Man, she was running just like you and I do!

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy68.htm

 

I strongly think Ivan Sanderson even more than Jacques Cousteau was the inspiration for Steve Zissou...

 

Rich_Grybos_and_Ivan_Sanderson_fs.jpg

 

life_aquatic_with_steve_zissou_ver3.jpg?

 

In the same article Sanderson removed Bernard Heuvalmans, his respected colleague, dismissing the PGF as a hoax, he puts the filiming at 3:30pm, he says the filming site was 20 miles from the nearest logging (as opposed to within sight of one). It's an article riddled with errors and fabrications by a man who himself was hoaxing with his breathless ABSMery fluff stories.

 

Joshua Blu Buhs on Ivan Sanderson less than diligent reporting...

 

http://books.google.ca/books?id=RI4SlHwH7h0C&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=bigfoot+life+and+times+of+a+legend+ivan+sanderson&source=bl&ots=d3hw1k1KTC&sig=G3Nwj0Dqs57A9vgw16y2c8z5_YI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wq0MU6XHHsTPkgXMiID4DA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ivan%20sanderson&f=false

 

Ivan Sanderson linked himself to the PGF to make money and sell magazines.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Here is something a little more straight forward, rather than all murky, what the heck is he talking about stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Kit- If you don't think the story of Universal Studios and Dale Sheets is real then refute it with something substantial. For you to try and paint Sanderson's stories as being fabricated and unreliable is comical, like the pot calling the kettle black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Few times does it ever get as delicious as this...

 

 

A later article Sanderson wrote about the New York interview doesn't even place Gimlin there in New York, just Roger and Al, so I'm skeptical about his original Argosy story. I think he embellished a few things in that article.
 

 

As skeptical as you yourself were about the article, and your suspicion of embellishment.

 

If my criticism of Sanderson as being unreliable is comical...

 

Wait for it..

 

* What * is * your * criticism * of * Sanderson's * article? * 

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^It's pretty simple Kit. it's comical because you have the gall to paint a person as being unreliable based on the same things that you do. Did you not understand the quote "like the pot calling the kettle black"?

 

I know that Sanderson embellishes some things, but when he gives a name and quotes associated with that name then common sense would dictate that there's probably no embellishing going on. That would be grounds for a lawsuit.

 

All you've done since you returned is to use associations, character assassinations, and biased picture painting to debate with. That's a far cry from someone who claimed so many times to have proof of a hoax. What happened? Dog ate your proof? Misplaced it while moving? I will always expect no less than proof from you because you've flaunted it so many times on this forum to gain the upper hand. Time to pay your tab.

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...