Jump to content

Why Are The Pgf Detractors So Persistent?


Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

^

 

I'm not insisting on a 'waders only' scenario, dmaker. I am asking you about the 'hip waders' themselves...on their own....because that is how things like this should be analyzed.....one point/step at a time.

 

How do you think engineers design things....by figuring that if they take a "whole bunch of things", and throw them together...that they will get a specific end-product??? :wacko:

 

Is that how the "Patty suit' was designed?? Some guy just figured that if he threw together some padding...a 'hip wader'...and a 'pant leg'....that he would end-up with the most realistic looking leg ever seen on a 'man-in-a-suit'??? 

 

 

I asked you about one specific item....a hip wader. Can you answer the question...or not? 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Sweaty, I have never said that hip waders on their own will produce a calf muscle effect. I said if waders were used in the costume. If you want to question me, then please stick to the original context of my comment.  I am not interested in your strawman word games.  If that is what you want, then go play ransom note with someone else.

 

I said if the hip wader story is true, as in hip waders, or something quite similar, were used in the costume. Why would you then proceed to ask me about hip waders on their own? Hip waders on their own are going to look like hip waders. The source of the contours would be obvious since it would be obvious you are looking at hip waders. 

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Obviously you are unable to connect the dots that the trackway and the film are for all intents and purposes one in the same.

 

what!?  That takes not making any sense to a whole new level.  
 

With some padding and some film artefacting and a dash of pareidolia, absolutely.  That left foot isn't looking so natural.

 

There is nothing about a hip wader that looks like a calf muscle and no padding, artifacting, or pareidolia will make that happen.  Regarding the left foot, please refer to everything nearly white in that image which results in the same kind of "image bloom".  Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_(shader_effect)

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Perhaps you are right, xspider. Perhaps hip waders were not used, or at least not the boot portion. Who knows? I have never claimed to know how the costume was made. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Skeptics: "It's an Obvious Fake"

 

There is this perception of what we believe to be true must be a universal truth because it looks like the truth to us.   We cannot then understand how, "Some egghead could be so stupid as to not see this is fake"

 

If we just take for granted blanket statements like, "It's a man in an ape suit.  I thought everyone knew that." then consider what else should be true:

 

If it is such a bad fur suit and so obvious to us, then there should be NEAR UNIVERSAL agreement on just what a obvious hoax this is to the experts.

 

There is no such universal dismissal of the PGF by nearly all experts who take a look at it.  How can that be?  Because it is not an obvious fake.

 

Consider just a few things said by people who are knowledgeable looking at the film and then asked to give an opinion:

 

-"I don't know how they (Roger and Bob) would have done does that then.  If it is a hoax it has got to be one of the greatest hoaxes of all time"  Paraphrasing Burke from the Jim Henson Creature Shop.

 

-"I don't think so"  Prohaska when asked if he felt the figure in the PGF was a man in a suit.

 

-...and so on.

 

If is it such a laughable and obvious fake how it is that a suit guy of that era could be so easily fooled? How it is that ANY expert of today could be fooled?  There should be near 100% agreement if Patty is such a laughable fake.   Shouldn't Prohaska being saying, "Yes, it is clear to me this is a man in a suit.  Its obviously a costume."   He said no such thing.  Shouldn't Burke be saying, "We do different things now, but it is obviously an old school hoax.  Let me show you what they did it back then.   I took some cloth in existence at the time and made a quick mock up..."

 

Yes, skeptics I realize you can put up some quotes by a others saying the PGF is, '"A man in a bad fur suit, sorry."   But this misses the point.  There should be near universal opinion it is a man in a bad suit if it in fact a man in a bad suit.  You should NEVER have guys like Munns, Prohaska, Burke and many others saying anything other than it being a fake.

 

If it is so bad the number of expert people who think it is real should be able to hold their meetings in a telephone booth with room to spare.

 

How could skeptic scientist Dr. Daegling (sp?) be taken in when he admits to date positive proof of a hoax has not come forward.  Oh he may suggest or suspect it is a fake but that does not change the point.

 

Come on, this could not be if it was a man in a bad ape suit. 

 

Skeptics, it is Not an obvious fake even though many of you think it is. The more and more it is studied the more and more an obvious fake should be apparent.  It is not to skeptic scientist Dr. Deagling.  Why don't you consider why that is?

 

I guess we are back to Roger having a warrant for his arrest. 

 

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

^Since every track line (except the possible one in the snow in Minnesota) has been discredited a bigfoot track line will likely lead you to where the hoaxer parked the SUV.  Bigfoot are really big?  Patty wasn't to tuff and wasn't so big.

 

I really don't get why a hoaxer, who had never worn shoes in her life, would bother to go on someone's private land with no trails, just so they could walk past a bog, without any hope of the hoax being discovered. We were only back there on a whim; hadn't been back in that part of the property in about 25 years. I like looking for tracks of any kind; had I not been there I guarantee the trackline would not have been seen as the others that were with me had no tracking experience whatsoever. Plainly this was not a hoax.

 

One of the two I saw was 10 feet tall- it was 6 feet seated on its rear. I figured with the size of its legs (the thighs of which were nearly as big around as my waist) if they were only 4 feet long 10 feet standing up was very possible, and hanging around was likely not a Good Idea.

 

One thing that has come up repeatedly about the PGF is we don't really know exactly how far Patty was from the camera and thus don't have a good idea of her height; she might be as much as 7 1/2 feet high or maybe only 6 1/2 feet. Either way she has a massive build.  

 

 

 

Please point it out again because I missed the part about how tracks can be used to find bigfoot?

 

OK, from two prior posts:

 

QUOTE:

As any tracker knows, prints contain quite a lot of information about the creature that made it: what sex it is, if it has eaten recently, what way its looking at the time the track was made, where the next track will be, how fast it was going, stuff like that.

 

(emphasis added)

And:

QUOTE:

 

I saw the BF I saw a long time ago- in 1990. Since then I've taken a bunch of tracking classes for entirely different reasons (I've been fascinated by primitive survival skills since I was a little kid), which is how I know that tracks are pretty serious evidence. Trackers get used to find convicts and lost people, hunters use them to find quarry. I'm sure a good tracker could use them to find a BF too. But there is a different problem! Do you really want to do that? I've seen them- and while I am obviously fascinated with the idea of seeing one again, at the same time I'm not certain that I really want to. Especially if I am tracking one. They're really BIG. That might not be the best way to have an encounter, if you know what I am saying. Its this aspect of BF that must be really frustrating for those on the fence over existence- those that have had encounters are often not sure they want to have one again, and/or are pretty sure they don't want to reveal too much about what they know (like, where to find them for example).

Link to post
Share on other sites

With some padding and some film artefacting and a dash of pareidolia, absolutely.  That left foot isn't looking so natural.

 

 

JDL, could you please provide a reference for the NatGeo conclusion?  Thanks

 

Here is the link to the first part, the other parts are in the menu to the right on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR7KvDVZkz8

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sweaty, I have never said that hip waders on their own will produce a calf muscle effect. I said if waders were used in the costume. If you want to question me, then please stick to the original context of my comment.  I am not interested in your strawman word games.  If that is what you want, then go play ransom note with someone else.

 

I said if the hip wader story is true, as in hip waders, or something quite similar, were used in the costume. Why would you then proceed to ask me about hip waders on their own? Hip waders on their own are going to look like hip waders. The source of the contours would be obvious since it would be obvious you are looking at hip waders. 

 

 

You can keep trying to make this as convoluted as possible, dmaker....but it is really a very simple situation.

 

 

So let's take it one point/step at a time. In Post #144, I asked you this question...

 

 "Regarding the 'hip wader' theory...do they (hip waders) generally produce this degree of resemblance to a real calf muscle?"

 

Can you answer the question? :)

 

 

dmaker wrote:

 

 

 If you want to question me, then please stick to the original context of my comment. 

 

 

I'll ask you questions regarding the appearance of the back of Patty's legs.

 

One significant detail of which, is how a small area does not pull away from the back of the "actor's" leg....while the muscle/"padding" appears to bulge outwards.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

With some padding and some film artefacting and a dash of pareidolia, absolutely.  That left foot isn't looking so natural.

 

 

JDL, could you please provide a reference for the NatGeo conclusion?  Thanks

 

Here is the link to the first part, the other parts are in the menu to the right on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR7KvDVZkz8

 

I can't watch that in Canada. We have odd international streaming laws. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

 

Obviously you are unable to connect the dots that the trackway and the film are for all intents and purposes one in the same.

 

what!?  That takes not making any sense to a whole new level.  
 

With some padding and some film artefacting and a dash of pareidolia, absolutely.  That left foot isn't looking so natural.

 

There is nothing about a hip wader that looks like a calf muscle and no padding, artifacting, or pareidolia will make that happen.  Regarding the left foot, please refer to everything nearly white in that image which results in the same kind of "image bloom".  Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_(shader_effect)

 

Yo Xspider sooooo the tracks in Roger's second reel and the one's others later saw at the film site were not from Roger's being at Bluff Creek?  You mean Roger filmed other supposedly real bigfoot tracks other than the one's his subject made?  You can't separate Roger's second reel bigfoot stuff from the first reel it is all from one series of events.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Backdoc:   Good points all in your last post.      There are a couple of videos where groups of scientists evaluate the film.    Our forum skeptics seem to ignore what the scientists say and don't say.    In one video there is a panel of scientists who evaluate the P/G film.    Meldrum being one of them.  While the skeptics discount Meldrum because of his beliefs,  we have to look at what the other scientists said.    While some concluded, that it could be a person in a suit and not authentic,  I don't think a single one of them stated as the skeptics do daily, that it is obviously a man in a suit.   Some just say that the film is not good enough to tell if it was an authentic creature.   Scientist normally leave an out in case they are wrong or the evidence is not conclusive.     Forum skeptics do not think that necessary because they know that BF does not exist therefore it has to be a person in a costume.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

^I've seen the round table discussion.  I doesn't break new ground and essentially is a continuing of the endless rehashing of the same tired stuff.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

^^ but by scientists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

^And the field is just as inconclusive than if they had hired the crew from the local car wash.  Gigo =gigo and in the meantime not a single accredited institution will endorse the science from that show or any other bigfoot show.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Backdoc:   Good points all in your last post.      There are a couple of videos where groups of scientists evaluate the film.    Our forum skeptics seem to ignore what the scientists say and don't say.    In one video there is a panel of scientists who evaluate the P/G film.    Meldrum being one of them.  While the skeptics discount Meldrum because of his beliefs,  we have to look at what the other scientists said.    While some concluded, that it could be a person in a suit and not authentic,  I don't think a single one of them stated as the skeptics do daily, that it is obviously a man in a suit.   Some just say that the film is not good enough to tell if it was an authentic creature.   Scientist normally leave an out in case they are wrong or the evidence is not conclusive.     Forum skeptics do not think that necessary because they know that BF does not exist therefore it has to be a person in a costume.  

 

 

I remember a show recently where Meldrum, Nekaris, and a couple others were sitting around the table.  It may have been Bigfoot the definitive guide.  When the issue of the PGF came up, the guy who had been in the bush many times with apes felt the PGF was impressive.  Nekaris was more neutral but not dismissive.  The other two were not in favor of the PGF being real but it had nothing to do (at least on the show segment) with what they saw on the film. They were concerned based on Roger not having in their minds the best reputation.

 

If the PGF was an Obvious hoax, I doubt Nekaris would have kept her mouth shut.

 

To the skeptics who contend PGF is a hoax can we at least admit it is a genius level effort.  I doubt Munns is a fool.  When he worked hard on the PGF issues, he was impressed the film showed a real creature.  Several people who are experts in various fields either support the film as real or at least do not dismiss it as a hoax and more neutral. Again, if it was some obvious hoax the way Stan Winston would have us believe then all of these people should easily and quickly see that. 

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...