Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

Twist
1 hour 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.

 

Its also been written that they were not the best.  Anything can be written, and who is the best at visual effects ultimately comes down to opinion.  

 

Also from Wikipedia:

 

Bill Munns, retired, was a special effects and make-up artist,[241] cameraman, and film editor.[242] He argues that Universal and Disney were not the most knowledgeable studios to consult with. He says that Fox, MGM, and special effects artist Stuart Freeborn in England, "who had just completed his groundbreaking ape suits for 2001: A Space Odyssey," would have been preferable.[243]

 

 

55 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

 

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.

 

54 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

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.

.......

 

28 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

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...

 

images edited out....

 

I have not been able to view the higher quality images and thus only can go off what is readily available to myself.  What I see I do not consider high quality, I find it littered with artifacts and what seems to be shifting contrasts or such, not sure of the right term that applies to what I see.

 

 I do think that its a great film of whatever we see, if it is a hoax its very good IMO and if its real then great, I'm a BF proponent and would love for this mystery to be solved.  The PGF itself will never prove it and will remain suspect to me. :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
On 5/2/2017 at 9:13 PM, PBeaton said:

     On ‎5‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 6:17 AM, Martin said:

All of the evidence available indicates that the "actual developing of the PGF" was done thru normal channels.

 

Haha ! Oh really, an just what actual evidence would that be ? As I've been sayin'...speculation on both parts ! But I'd love to see your evidence !

Kodak leader, Kodak box and Rogers pervious use of Kodak to develop his film. That is evidence.

Mysterious porn labs, back handed deals and chartered flights are not evidence but attempt to marry the story with the dodgy timeline.

Quote

Uhhh...They claimed the filmin' date was Oct 20th...an the film was indeed processed. The 2nd reel was developed after, the same mystery remains with it...yet...it was also processed. 

  

 

The only primary involved...did you forget Gimlin ? DeAtley thought it was a hoax because he didn't think Roger could be that lucky, that is what he told Byrne. If he actually knew it was a hoax as claimed, when he says it's a hoax...he could back up his claim quite easily. 

 

Do we have a actual quote from Ishihara sayin' he did not process the film, far as I recall seein', we have one Hsaio sayin' Ishihara only remembers processin' one film on a Saturday for the military. As OldMort mentioned, the processor wouldn't likely study or view the entire film, sounds like somethin' easily forgotten had he been lookin' at wilderness images. No one else has come forward either. 

 

Pilot...

 

 

You said yourself just said, researchers were incompetent, now you believe they were...huh !  ;) 

 

He said...because he didn't think Roger could be that lucky. If it was a hoax, an he knew it...as I said...he could have said it.

 

 

Patterson uses...oh what is it...oh ya...a phone, calls DeAtley, he tells him to go here, DeAtley calls a developer, then friend/associate/pilot, they take film for developin' an bring it to DeAtley...speculation of course, but since you're doin' it. 

 

That is a claim that has not been established.

 

Ishihara say he only remember developing film on weekends one time and it was for the government. Why would he forget the only other time he developed film on the weekend.

The only reason he would forget the only other time he developed film on the weekend is to fit into the dodgy timeline.

 

A pilot is needed to make the timeline work even though none have come forward.. Patterson first told Hodgson he went to Eureka and mailed the film. 

 

DeAtley says Roger and Bob were probably in a bar chasing women. DeAtley also says Roger couldn't have been that lucky.

 

What DeAtley has never said is that he chartered a flight and couriered Rogers film anywhere. That is a construct created by footers to fit the timeline.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Martin,

 

You're welcome, maybe now you'll realize they didn't just do cartoons ! Although, maybe there's somethin' ta be said about that... ;);)

 

They said "..if it was hoaxed, it had to be a man in a suit." Then they told Green the top man was Prohaska.  I'm goin' ta guess you didn't notice what one of the top men in the costume field had concluded right..."After studying the film, Prohaska was convinced that it depicted a living creature rather than a man in a suit." It's right up there for you...if you'd like. He said "It looked to me to be very very real. If that was a costume that was the best I have ever seen."

 

I'm guessin' the significances eludes you...these were some of the best in Hollywood at the time...vs...Roger Patterson !

 

Pat...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
18 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

Martin,

 

You're welcome, maybe now you'll realize they didn't just do cartoons ! Although, maybe there's somethin' ta be said about that... ;);)

 

They said "..if it was hoaxed, it had to be a man in a suit." Then they told Green the top man was Prohaska.  I'm goin' ta guess you didn't notice what one of the top men in the costume field had concluded right..."After studying the film, Prohaska was convinced that it depicted a living creature rather than a man in a suit." It's right up there for you...if you'd like. He said "It looked to me to be very very real. If that was a costume that was the best I have ever seen."

 

I'm guessin' the significances eludes you...these were some of the best in Hollywood at the time...vs...Roger Patterson !

 

Pat...

 

Disney could not make a Patty stationary robot. I am sure that no one thinks Patty is a stationary robot. 

 

"Green was referred by Disney to Prohaska because the PGF was outside of their area of expertise." That would be a more factual statement.

 

The footer claim that Disney ànimators can't recreate Patty as seen is useless information. 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Martin,

 

You're welcome, maybe now you'll realize they didn't just do cartoons ! Although, maybe there's somethin' ta be said about that... ;);)

 

They said "..if it was hoaxed, it had to be a man in a suit." Then they told Green the top man was Prohaska.  I'm goin' ta guess you didn't notice what one of the top men in the costume field had concluded right..."After studying the film, Prohaska was convinced that it depicted a living creature rather than a man in a suit." It's right up there for you...if you'd like. He said "It looked to me to be very very real. If that was a costume that was the best I have ever seen."

 

I'm guessin' the significances eludes you...these were some of the best in Hollywood at the time...vs...Roger Patterson !

 

Pat...

 

Pat,

 

Prohaska, from what I have briefly read was definitely considered a high level man in the costume field, of course it must be kept in mind that what he said was only his opinion, it's not a fact.  There are other high level men in the costume field that have stated beliefs to the contrary.  Its all subjective opinion.  In the Wiki there are other high level costume artists that agree with Prohaska, its a two way street.  Below are examples of some that do not agree with Prohaska, just to post their thoughts.  

 

Wiki:

 

Rick Baker. Famed Hollywood creator of Harry (from the movie, Harry and the Hendersons), Rick Baker, told Geraldo Rivera's "Now It Can Be Told" show (in 1992) that "it looked like cheap, fake fur," after seeing the subject in Patterson's filmstrip.[248] Baker said that John Chambers had "a crappy walkaround suit," that he sold as "a gag to be played on the guy that shot it [the film]."[249] Later on, Baker's studio stated in a fax, "He no longer believes this [that Chambers made the suit] is true."[250]

 

Stan Winston. Academy Award-winning film special effects supervisor and makeup artist Stan Winston, after viewing the PGF, said "it's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!" He also added that "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day".[259]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
Quote

He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day".[259]

 

So much time has passed since the film that the suit claims have taken on a new context.   No believable suit, none even close.   Over so many years with so much talked and so little walked, such claims have become extraordinary in their own right and as such, require extraordinary proof.   Just as is said about bigfoot.   The other edge of the same sword.   So far, there's less evidence for a suit than there is for a squatch.   Think about it ...

 

MIB

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

There is no doubt that both sides of the sword require proof that is not currently there.  Its possible both sides of the sword are lacking the right people/groups working towards it. They may not be impossible tasks, just tasks not undertaken by the right parties. 

Edited by Twist
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Twist,

 

I agree, his opinion, but as one of the best...at the time...which I find quite relevant.

 

Lets look at what Baker was creatin' in '71, 4 years after the PGF...

 

 

Or Winston..., '72, 5 years after the PGF...

 

 

Pat...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ rofl.  Man, I thought that octaman and those gargoyles were real for about 50 years 0 seconds.  :D  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Pat,

 

I'm not going to start comparing and contrasting sfx people, its all opinion on who was and was not the best.  I'm sure they all have examples of good and bad work. 

 

The proponents used a high level suite maker's comments as evidence toward their side. I just provided high level suit makers that countered that argument, or more accurately my goal was to show once again, how opinions are not facts.  

 

Bakers accomplishments = 7 Academy awards with 11 nominations.

Winston accomplishments = 4 Academy awards with 11 nominations.  & 2 Emmys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Twist,

 

Baker, 1st academy award....1981...American Werewolf in London...$10,000,000.00 budget...14 years after PGF...

Winston, 1st academy award, 1986, Aliens, $18,000,000.00 budget...19 years after PGF...

 

Patterson...1967...Bluff Creek sasquatch footage...shoestring budget...50 years later...still one of the most viewed films, studied films, that has not been proven a hoax...

 

Pat...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

So we agree that Disney never endorsed Patty as real.

 

They did say that they couldn't create an animation is version to replicate the creature in the film?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
4 hours ago, PBeaton said:

Twist,

 

Baker, 1st academy award....1981...American Werewolf in London...$10,000,000.00 budget...14 years after PGF...

Winston, 1st academy award, 1986, Aliens, $18,000,000.00 budget...19 years after PGF...

 

Patterson...1967...Bluff Creek sasquatch footage...shoestring budget...50 years later...still one of the most viewed films, studied films, that has not been proven a hoax...

 

Pat...

 

Pat,

 

I believe you are missing my point. I am not comparing and contrasting the artists.  I am providing opinions of high level sfx artists.  Despite their budgets or what studios they may have worked for, when they see something that may have been constructed and then believe so, that was what I was showing. 

 

Do you believe that Baker and Winston are unqualified to comment on the subject of PGF and give an opinion on man in suit vs. genuine creature ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
11 hours ago, Twist said:

 

 

Rick Baker. Famed Hollywood creator of Harry (from the movie, Harry and the Hendersons), Rick Baker, told Geraldo Rivera's "Now It Can Be Told" show (in 1992) that "it looked like cheap, fake fur," after seeing the subject in Patterson's filmstrip.[248] Baker said that John Chambers had "a crappy walkaround suit," that he sold as "a gag to be played on the guy that shot it [the film]."[249] Later on, Baker's studio stated in a fax, "He no longer believes this [that Chambers made the suit] is true."[250]

 

 

 

 

Let me adds this about Baker from Wiki:

 

Rick Baker, who designed and wore the ape suit in collaboration with Carlo Rambaldi, was extremely disappointed in the final suit, which he felt wasn't at all convincing. He gives all the credit for its passable appearance to cinematographer Richard H. Kline.  "

 

King Kong came out in 1976 (nearly 10 years!!!! after the PGF)    The idea that Baker can only credit lighting, camera angles, and editing to make the King Kong of the 1970's passible is pretty instructional as to why Patty is impressive.  He can say what he wants to now with modern tech but like a murder scene we need to go to the statements which are closer to the event by Baker.  Back then, he wasn't impressed with a gorilla suit with a big budget.  Yet today, we are to believe he could have easily pulled off the PGF in 1967.

 

The old saying goes, The older I get the better I was.  Baker is a talent but lets get real here.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

^ I appreciate the additional information BD.  

 

I'm not here to pick apart what "expert" is better than the other when giving an opinion.  I'm merely presenting another side of the coin and provided their comments and awards I believe makes them qualified to speak on the subject.  

 

I'd recommend any further discussion should move to the suit thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×