Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Pgf Vs. Any Other Footage

Recommended Posts

Guest JiggyPotamus

I read DWA's and Rockape's comments and I agree 100%. Nowadays it is so easy for someone to fake bigfoot footage, which was not the case when the PGF was shot. It could still be done at that time, but it would be easier for us to determine if it was hoaxed at present, considering that even though technology can aid hoaxers, it can also help to discover them. And the fact that the PGF has been analyzed more than any other piece of footage, yet still has not been proven to be a hoax, increases the chances that it is real. And despite what some have stated, there is absolutely nothing that even highly suggests it is a suit. Nothing on or about the creature suggests it is a person in a suit, just by looking at the film. It has been claimed that you can see this or that on the creature, but that is not true. Something like the fabled "bell-shaped" object. I mean give me a break. And some want to talk about bigfoot believers reading whatever they want into a piece of evidence? Another reason that it is so popular is because of the great view. Most bigfoot videos do not hold the entire creature in frame for so long.

 

Such a great view means that there is more to scrutinize, and because it is difficult for a hoaxer to get every single thing right, that means there is more that could potentially expose them. Even in modern times there are many suits that wouldn't fool an 8 year old. Because of this hoaxers have tried to create videos that accentuate the good features of the suit, while eliminating the bad features. Often times it is the face that is most obviously fake, although it is quite easy to spot pants that are made of some fabric and covered in hair, because there is no definition and it does not move naturally...And so whatever the case may be the hoaxer will attempt to hide these details from the camera, usually by obscuring the person in the suit behind foliage of some type.

 

What makes this irksome is the fact that bigfoot has some type of avoidance instinct, and is quite likely to move into such foliage if a person is near. And thus they naturally obscure themselves. So it is difficult and bothersome to analyze such a video simply because it could so easily be a hoaxer attempting to hide details or an actual bigfoot. Anyway my point is that we do not have this problem with the PGF. So either Patterson and Gimlin got a suit so good that they did not mind anyone scrutinizing it, which again is relatively rare even with modern hoaxers, or they just didn't think anyone would know enough about bigfoot to know the difference...or it was real. The thing is however that if they were hoping nobody would know what a bigfoot looked like, they obviously didn't think the suit looked too much like a suit. Or they thought it looked natural enough to show the whole thing.

 

So even if people did not know what features to look for, they still would not be fooled by a cheap imitation. But at that time cheap imitations were almost all that was available. Such a suit would have to have been custom made, and not just by anyone. It would have probably been the most realistic suit at that time, and still would surpass the majority of what is available today. Go do an image search for bigfoot costumes and you will see what I mean. A great commercial suit was not likely to be available at that time. And not only that, but creating a still life bigfoot that looked realistic would have been much easier than creating a suit that not only looked real, or didn't look fake, but moved with the wearer in such a way as to look realistic and animal-like. That is one thing that some forget. A suit behaves like a suit. You cannot just throw a suit on and have it look realistic, especially when the entire thing is visible as in the PGF. The anatomically correct muscle definition suggests that if it was fake, not only did the creator fashion a suit that was realistic on the outside, but they also fashioned anatomically correct muscles to go into the suit, and to conform to the wearer. To me that suggests that someone didn't just show up with the suit and ask someone to put it on.

 

The wearer would have to have been present during the creation process, as it would have been somewhat of a trial and error thing to get all those muscles positioned correctly. You can measure a person beforehand, but with something like this it will take actually doing it. Trial and error. See what looks good. The idea that Patterson asked Bob H. to put this suit on and it magically fitted him and he filled it out, etc, seems unbelievable to me. Anyway...

 

They would not have known then what we know now. There wouldn't have been all this talk about bigfoot videos that show only parts of a creature through foliage. So they wouldn't have been as concerned with showing the entire creature to make it believable, as that is a more modern thought process in my opinion, which is based on the countless videos that depict something that is not definitive. Videos of bigfoot were virtually non-existent at that time. I really feel that if they were going to hoax it, they wouldn't have done it in the open. I really do believe they just got lucky, as they had many things working to their advantage that we can point to today. That is not definitive but it is what I think occurred. It just seems that they would not have had to go through so much trouble at that time for people to believe the video was real. The standard of costumes was not as high as it is today. Why go through so much trouble and undoubtedly spend a lot of money to create something for a purpose when one could do it with less resources and get the same effect? Again, not definitive, but cumulatively speaking I think the video has enough going for it, to the point that I believe it is authentic. And there are things that I did not even mention, things that also make me think it is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Okay, hopefully this works. Here is a pic of the head tilted back, nose is in the air-

 

3445qgm.jpg

 

 

Here is the clip of the head tilting back-

 

http://tinypic.com/r/2a5ytrb/8

 

 

Okay maybe this will help. I tried to get my mask at the same angle here. If I was wearing it and pulled it up on top of my head this is what it would look like-

 

123rs53.jpg

 

It would also create a big 'Z' shaped wrinkle in the hood fabric on the back.

 

 

Now with that in mind, watch the video again and watch him tilt the mask back on his head-

 

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2a5ytrb&s=8

 

Nope and nope. But I see how you arrived at this.

 

You are not seeing the nose pointing up at all! When the creature raises its head the eye sockets are barely visible above the leaves. You've got your scale off- the head is a lot larger. See the two sticks crossing where you have the 'eye' pointed out? Follow the vertical one down to where you see a sort of green bar to the left. That green bar is just beneath the left eye socket.  You can see the ear to the right, behind and level with the eye socket. This is a lot easier to see in the actual video.

 

What looks like where your 'mask' joins the head is a part, similar to a cowlick, where the forehead meets the top of the skull.

 

If one were going with your interpretation I can certainly see how someone would take that as fake. But the creature appears to be looking straight ahead, not up. In the context of the video this makes sense- at first it is looking down at what it is doing. When it heard something, it stops looking at its work.

 

What I think is hard to understand is how large these things really are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Some of these videos we are discussing as well as others out there are very curious to me.  Many seem to be very stationary and non-athletic looking creatures, which seem to be in stark contrast from the thousands of witness reports that are documented...i find these to be an odd angle which never seems to be discussed... photos and videos don't match most I-witness reports.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If he often researches in areas near hiking trails then he would be familiar with the fact that hikers, bikers, pets, etc. frequent those areas.  In that video he clearly was in such an area, so much so that a jogger was close enough to be seen on screen through the trees.  Upon hearing barking, who would he immediately claim "wild dogs" knowing that domestic dogs could likely be nearby with their owners on the trails?  That doesn't make any sense to me since clearly a domestic dog was likely or at least possibly the source of the barking.

On the other hand, if this WAS a hoax, the "wild dogs" response makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

What is "likely" is in the ear of the beholder. He has a few videos where he talks about being stalked by coyotes and how afraid he was of them. He obviously doesn't feel surrounded by domestic animals when he's in those woods. And in the 432 videos he's made so far, he has only once encountered another human being -- a woman -- on the trail. And that was evidently so unusual that he took the opportunity to interview her, because he was curious to find out whether she'd had any encounters herself. (He once saw two other people, but at a great distance, walking on the frozen river. That's it, for what I can remember.)

 

I would suggest taking a look at those 432 videos. After you've seen some number of them, you'll have a much better idea who this person is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Nope and nope. But I see how you arrived at this.

 

You are not seeing the nose pointing up at all! When the creature raises its head the eye sockets are barely visible above the leaves. You've got your scale off- the head is a lot larger. See the two sticks crossing where you have the 'eye' pointed out? Follow the vertical one down to where you see a sort of green bar to the left. That green bar is just beneath the left eye socket.  You can see the ear to the right, behind and level with the eye socket. This is a lot easier to see in the actual video.

 

What looks like where your 'mask' joins the head is a part, similar to a cowlick, where the forehead meets the top of the skull.

 

If one were going with your interpretation I can certainly see how someone would take that as fake. But the creature appears to be looking straight ahead, not up. In the context of the video this makes sense- at first it is looking down at what it is doing. When it heard something, it stops looking at its work.

 

What I think is hard to understand is how large these things really are.

 

What I see is what I see, sorry. I see a mask being lifted up on the head and then back down. I also see a big Z shaped bunching of fabric at the back of the mask. I don't see anything real, large, or any other interpretation.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

"What I see is what I see." That's a very profound statement. It suggests -- rightly -- that each person has a unique take on what they "see", which take is influenced by a combination of factors, including training, underlying beliefs and thoughts, past experiences, and physical factors. 

 

So what that means, essentially, is that what we "see" is just an opinion -- and you are so right, to underscore that you are entitled to your opinion. You certainly are.

 

In my case, because Salubrious has had some actual experience that applies here (he has seen two over-sized hairy individuals in the flesh), and because of the testimony of my own eyes -- what they see, when I watch the video -- I wholeheartedly share Salubrious' opinion.

 

But as I say, don't ever be deterred by someone else's opinion! Cleave to yours, no matter what, if cleaving that way makes you happy. That is, as you imply, your right to do so.

Edited by LeafTalker
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
BFF Donor

What I see is what I see, sorry. I see a mask being lifted up on the head and then back down. I also see a big Z shaped bunching of fabric at the back of the mask. I don't see anything real, large, or any other interpretation.

 

I don't see all that.   I simply don't see enough to conclude sasquatch, not even weakly.   It's simply not clear to me what the vid shows.   So ... interesting but useless so far as evidence for or against existence of sasquatch.  

 

What this has shown, IMHO, is how far people will grasp beyond what is reasonable to use ANYTHING, regardless of how shaky it is, to support their foregone conclusions ... EITHER conclusion. 

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

What I see is what I see, sorry. I see a mask being lifted up on the head and then back down. I also see a big Z shaped bunching of fabric at the back of the mask. I don't see anything real, large, or any other interpretation.

 

No worries! I had a hard time seeing anything in this, despite the long time its been out, until I saw a breakdown a few days ago. If you've not seen one before, you don't have any way of knowing what the face would look like. Now it may be paradolia on my part, but I can't make my brain 'see' anything else than the way I described. However we can apply a little logic here- if you were working on cracking some nuts, you would be looking down at your work, right? But if you heard a sound, would you look up into the air? Or would you level your head so you could look for the source of the sound? Just something to try on...

 

Regarding size as you know I do claim to have seen two of them close up. Its the size thing that I think throws a lot of people- how can they be so darn huge?? This is one mystery that really gets me- they really are that big or even bigger (imagine one so large that it is 6 feet high seated on its rear- turn off the skeptic portion of the brain for a moment and really try to get a feel for how big that really is...) yet they stay out of sight and for the most part seem to want to avoid us. The whole thing is fraught with mystery, which is part of the appeal in my case.

 

Anyway, its that size thing that seems to be playing out in this video. If you have the creature looking up, you don't really get an idea of the size. If you can see that head looking straight forward, its like stepping into a different world. This is actually the video that got me thinking this might not be a hoax; its easier to see near the end of it but if you watch that area that I pointed out earlier, there is a point in the video (about 0:46)  where you can see both eye sockets! Pretty cool:

 

 

In that video I can't see how anyone would think its looking up but that's me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

 

Such a great view means that there is more to scrutinize, and because it is difficult for a hoaxer to get every single thing right, that means there is more that could potentially expose them. Even in modern times there are many suits that wouldn't fool an 8 year old. Because of this hoaxers have tried to create videos that accentuate the good features of the suit, while eliminating the bad features. Often times it is the face that is most obviously fake, although it is quite easy to spot pants that are made of some fabric and covered in hair, because there is no definition and it does not move naturally...And so whatever the case may be the hoaxer will attempt to hide these details from the camera, usually by obscuring the person in the suit behind foliage of some type.

 

What makes this irksome is the fact that bigfoot has some type of avoidance instinct, and is quite likely to move into such foliage if a person is near. And thus they naturally obscure themselves. So it is difficult and bothersome to analyze such a video simply because it could so easily be a hoaxer attempting to hide details or an actual bigfoot. Anyway my point is that we do not have this problem with the PGF. So either Patterson and Gimlin got a suit so good that they did not mind anyone scrutinizing it, which again is relatively rare even with modern hoaxers, or they just didn't think anyone would know enough about bigfoot to know the difference...or it was real. The thing is however that if they were hoping nobody would know what a bigfoot looked like, they obviously didn't think the suit looked too much like a suit. Or they thought it looked natural enough to show the whole thing.

 

 

This...and other stuff you said.

 

That the first (and it was) bigfoot film ever just happened to be such a good fake that no effort was made to hide anything - which, with five decades of technology advances, happens now with practically every photo or video - and nothing has been found pointing to a fake, in almost five decades?

 

And two cowboys did it?  And if they didn't, no one has arisen to take credit whose story stands the barest scrutiny?

 

I know nothing in the field that strains believability more than Pattyfake.  I'd take orbing and shape-shifting in a second over Pattyfake.  Because Pattyfake didn't happen.  It couldn't be clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Wild dogs are an ongoing issue in parts of Ontario, and have been for a very long time. They come in all sizes and breeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

They are a problem in various parts of the US too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

"What I see is what I see." That's a very profound statement. It suggests -- rightly -- that each person has a unique take on what they "see", which take is influenced by a combination of factors, including training, underlying beliefs and thoughts, past experiences, and physical factors. 

 

So what that means, essentially, is that what we "see" is just an opinion -- and you are so right, to underscore that you are entitled to your opinion. You certainly are.

 

In my case, because Salubrious has had some actual experience that applies here (he has seen two over-sized hairy individuals in the flesh), and because of the testimony of my own eyes -- what they see, when I watch the video -- I wholeheartedly share Salubrious' opinion.

 

But as I say, don't ever be deterred by someone else's opinion! Cleave to yours, no matter what, if cleaving that way makes you happy. That is, as you imply, your right to do so.

 

When all of the Squatch Whisperers on the forum can collectively present something substantial then maybe I'll start looking at it as an edge, but until then I can't help but view this stance as just a whole lot of posturing.

 

I'll stick with the "experience" and "training" of detecting hoaxers, thank you.

 

 

 

 

In that video I can't see how anyone would think its looking up but that's me.

 

That's not even the same bit of footage of what we're debating.

 

 

 

What this has shown, IMHO, is how far people will grasp beyond what is reasonable to use ANYTHING, regardless of how shaky it is, to support their foregone conclusions ... EITHER conclusion. 

 

MIB

 

In a field that's rife with hoaxing and Halloween costumes I would say that nothing is unreasonable. At the end of the day I know that people will side with whatever they want to believe about this guy anyways. If anything he does bring a level of entertainment and humor to the field, for what it's worth.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

However we can apply a little logic here- if you were working on cracking some nuts, you would be looking down at your work, right? But if you heard a sound, would you look up into the air? Or would you level your head so you could look for the source of the sound? Just something to try on...

 

 

We could apply the same logic to a hoax. If you're looking down trying to crack nuts with rocks and you can't see very well what would you do? Briefly lift the mask so you could see what you're doing, then put it back down.

 

More logic for you. A hoaxer would cut that specific scene out before releasing it- which he did.

 

You are not seeing the nose pointing up at all!

 

 

What I see as the "nose" is an actual part of the head- it moves with the head. There is also visible the large Z-shaped fold/wrinkle which is common with fabric. So far I have only seen people completely ignore these objects as if they don't exist. The mask explanation covers all of these points, but for some reason is not considered a "reasonable" explanation. Why is that?

 

How do these objects play in any other explanation?

 

nxnok6.jpg

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...