Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

"Regardless.... this is not the same as "Disney" making a claim as to its authenticity."  ;);) "They shook their heads and walked away."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Ken Peterson was an artist known for drawing famous cartoons. How does this transfer to expertise relating to the PGF.

 

I am not saying that he is not qualified I am simply saying that I don't see any relevant experience.

 

Byrne cites more unnamed animators with no mention of names or qualifications.

 

I don't doubt people from Disney looked at the film. Where they speaking on behalf of Disney? Where they qualified? What were their names (Byrne).

 

Did Green document his Disney trip in any of his books? Did he describe what channels he went thru to see Mr. Peterson? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Twist, to add a little to the Wikipedia article you posted; regarding the portion where it said the Disney people "praised it as a beautiful piece of work although, they said, it must have been shot in a studio." 

You've probably seen the writeup on Cryptomundo that was dated in 2006 about a conversation they had with Peter Byrne about when he took the film to Disney in 1973 (it said 1973 so unless he made two visits to Disney I'm guessing the year was wrong).

 

This is from the article; "They insisted that it had to have been created by a foreign film studio, as the quality was so good. They refused to believe that it could have been done by two rodeo cowboys."

 

It also did say this "They stated that they could replicate it, but only with considerable time and expense, millions of dollars and a year’s worth of time. They wanted Peter to confess that it was made by some movie studio, not two cowboys by the name of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin."

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
15 minutes ago, Martin said:

Ken Peterson was an artist known for drawing famous cartoons. How does this transfer to expertise relating to the PGF.

 

I am not saying that he is not qualified I am simply saying that I don't see any relevant experience.

 

Byrne cites more unnamed animators with no mention of names or qualifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

It is curious why they would go to animators at Disney.  Maybe back then it was a more general term for people in production??? Maybe that was the only connection he had at Disney and took what he could get.  I believe its been mentioned that other studios would have been much more knowledgeable in this field.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

That is what I was wondering also Twist.

 

There is a clear difference between Disney Inc sending you to a specific person or department vs. Showing up at Disney Studios and asking if someone can take a look at a film.

 

I know for a fact, first hand, that the general public can access the animation department fairly easily. At least in the late 80's early 90's you could because I have done it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Off-topic, but if any person or any group of people could make a decent replica of the Patterson-Gimlin film then, don't you think that would have been done at least once in the past 50 years?  There is, and has been for a long time, significant interest in human-like giant apes so; where is the disconnect?  It seems obvious that the missing link for PGf denialists is the simple fact that there is no costume explanation for the PGf subject at all, period.

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I sometimes wonder if the suit is not really as good as most believe.  What if this was a perfect storm of a shaky camera, different lense, and film graininess that give it such realism.  It's a common practice to use similar methods to hide hoaxs now.  This potentially being a real video requires the perfect storm in ways as it is.  Not saying I'm correct but it's something to think about.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, Twist said:

It is curious why they would go to animators at Disney.  Maybe back then it was a more general term for people in production??? Maybe that was the only connection he had at Disney and took what he could get.  I believe its been mentioned that other studios would have been much more knowledgeable in this field.  

 

It was written that Disney had the best of the best people when it came animation - special effects. That they were leaders in their field.

1 hour ago, Martin said:

That is what I was wondering also Twist.

 

There is a clear difference between Disney Inc sending you to a specific person or department vs. Showing up at Disney Studios and asking if someone can take a look at a film.

 

I know for a fact, first hand, that the general public can access the animation department fairly easily. At least in the late 80's early 90's you could because I have done it myself.

 

Had you followed the history of events - the film was taken to the VP and asked who there could look at the film. As I recall... it was then learned from Disney Studio's that their people had already seen the film and had stated that they could not replicate it unless they drew the subject and its movements.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
4 minutes ago, Twist said:

I sometimes wonder if the suit is not really as good as most believe. 

 

What suit??  8 )  The resolution of the PG film is actually higher than modern-day, digital "HD" although admittedly the film subject only occupies a small portion of that resolution.  I personally have never seen film graininess or camera 'shaking' lend credibility to any image and I have seen quite a few images.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
11 minutes ago, Twist said:

I sometimes wonder if the suit is not really as good as most believe.  What if this was a perfect storm of a shaky camera, different lense, and film graininess that give it such realism.  It's a common practice to use similar methods to hide hoaxs now.  This potentially being a real video requires the perfect storm in ways as it is.  Not saying I'm correct but it's something to think about.  

 

I can understand your position, but those who have seen both the original and copies have said the original was superior. It's also been pointed out that when Roger got the closest to the subject was when he got his most steadiest shots of its movement.

On 2017-05-02 at 9:10 PM, Martin said:

There isn't single piece of evidence other than the leader and Kodak boxes the film came out of that is supported by physical evidence. Those two items indicate an approved Kodak lab.

 

 

 

Doesn't matter if it was developed at Kodak or a Mom and Pop operation - the film is physical evidence that obviously was developed somewhere and by someone. I think we can all agree that it isn't a cartoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Twist,

 

Wasn't a suit.  ;) It's often mentioned the quality of the film is better than the images we see reproduced. Notice what Prohaska who was the top guy said.

(John mentions Canwest Films)

 

Pat...

 

IMG_6782.JPG

IMG_6783.JPG

IMG_6780.JPG

IMG_6781.JPG

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
33 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

It was written that Disney had the best of the best people when it came animation - special effects. That they were leaders in their field.

 

Had you followed the history of events - the film was taken to the VP and asked who there could look at the film. As I recall... it was then learned from Disney Studio's that their people had already seen the film and had stated that they could not replicate it unless they drew the subject and its movements.

 

"It was written" what is that supposed to mean?  ...... In typical bigfoot hunter tradition you have tried change the definition of cartoon animator - special effects.

 

This is why everything a bigfoot hunters say is unreliable. Never a straight answer. 

The VP wasnt nameless right? Ken Peterson was the VP right? He was an animator of cartoons. Disney Shorts. They are classics and cutting edge for their time but have nothing what so ever to do with costumes, suits or anything PGF. 

 

So Green shows up at Disney with a film.  While there he met a VP named Ken Peterson. Peterson tells Green that they have already seen it and couldn't recreate. I'm asking you if that's what Green told you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^ Read the images I posted...good grief...an you want to be taken serious !

 

ps:"Never a straight answer."

 

Ha ! Ha ! I replied to your questions with a few of my own the other day...this is the straight answer you came up with !  

 

"I didn't notice you asking any questions. I just saw you mading excuses for the dodgey timeline."

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

^ Pat,

Thanks for excerpt. 

It says Disney could not recreate the film mechanically. It mentions nothing of costumes and Green clearly adds that he was forced to go elsewhere for costume advice.

 

It's all right there in Green's words in Green's book. The Disney info has no bearing on Patty being a man in a costume what so ever.

 

Do you see Green's own words?

 

In your first excerpt it indicates that Peterson told Green "It had to be a man in a suit if it was a hoax".... Doesn't sound like a screaming endorsement at all.

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×