Jump to content
Cotter

How much longer should we wait for a PGF recreation before it's determined it can't be done?

Recommended Posts

Cotter

Hi Folks!

 

Many threads on here start with "How long does it take to [insert evidence/proof here] before people realize that Bigfoot isn't real?


Well, I want to flip that and ask how much longer should we wait until a reasonable person determines that a 'guy in a suit' cannot replicate the PGF subject?

 

Who's past that mark?  Who's not?

 

Throughout the threads here, there a tons of pictures of failed attempts.  What is out there that people feel replicates the PGF subject?  Any ones come close?

 

I've been waiting for years to see a replica.  Many past members have claimed to be working on one, but to no avail.  

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

I wouldn't wait another minute.

 

Most footers have already declared the Patty is real.

 

I don't know of anyone who is tried to make a suit except Leroy and Munn's. Leroy's was better but still jacked up.

 

Does anyone have a list of specific Patty suits attempts? Links?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

49 1/2 years......DING   Times up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter
17 minutes ago, Martin said:

Does anyone have a list of specific Patty suits attempts? Links?

 

 

I was kind of hoping some of these attempts would be cataloged on this thread.

 

Over the years, some members have claimed to be working on a suit, or portion of a suit.  But I don't believe we've had much luck in that area.

 

Maybe building a replica of Patty is as hard as getting a decent of pic?  LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
23 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

 

Does anyone have a list of specific Patty suits attempts? Links?

 

 

 

 

Here are a few who had the chance but never took it on. They had fame, a camera in their face and still failed to prove it was a man in a suit.

 

 

 

Expert                                             Suit Results

 

Stan Winston                                  No suit (said a suit could be made today for $200)

 

Chris Walas                                    No suit  (said Patty was a hip wader snap crotch but offered no

                                                       actual example of this which should be easy to do)

 

Peter Bruke                                    No suit (But he did show us nice arm extenders and modern

                                                       stretch fur he admitted was not available in 1967)

 

X Creatures

Suit guys                                        No suit. (used modern stretch cloth off rack

                                                        in no way available in 1967)

 

Rick Baker                                      No suit (but was not happy with his suit nearly

                                                        10 years later for King Kong.  Credited that suit

                                                        as only sellable based on the great camera work.

                                                         Also, was THE man in the King Kong suit in 1976)

 

 

To my thinking, I look at nearly any other challenge.  The expert easily takes it on and shows what can and cannot be done.  For instance, James Randi shows how it is easy to bend spoons in a Uri Geller type way.  He doesn't just say its a trick he shows it is a trick or likely a trick. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Blevin's suit was for sale. It had been damaged in a pro wrestling match. I don't know the details.

 

Tontar had a partially made suit but as far as I know never finished it.

 

2 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

Here are a few who had the chance but never took it on. They had fame, a camera in their face and still failed to prove it was a man in a suit.

 

 

 

Expert                                             Suit Results

 

Stan Winston                                  No suit (said a suit could be made today for $200)

 

Chris Walas                                    No suit  (said Patty was a hip wader snap crotch but offered no

                                                       actual example of this which should be easy to do) 

 

Peter Bruke                                    No suit (But he did show us nice arm extenders and modern

                                                       stretch fur he admitted was not available in 1967)

 

X Creatures

Suit guys                                        No suit. (used modern stretch cloth off rack

                                                        in no way available in 1967)

 

Rick Baker                                      No suit (but was not happy with his suit nearly

                                                        10 years later for King Kong.  Credited that suit

                                                        as only sellable based on the great camera work.

                                                         Also, was THE man in the King Kong suit in 1976)

 

 

To my thinking, I look at nearly any other challenge.  The expert easily takes it on and shows what can and cannot be done.  For instance, James Randi shows how it is easy to bend spoons in a Uri Geller type way.  He doesn't just say its a trick he shows it is a trick or likely a trick. 

 

 

 

Chris Walas suit was declared a real Sasquatch by Matt Moneymaker. 

 

So suit makers 1 bigfooters 0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Roger Patterson "bought a suit from Philip Morris"....and "turned it into Patty".....in a short 9 week time period. 

 

Does his "attempt" count?? :popcorn: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
39 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

 

 

Chris Walas suit was declared a real Sasquatch by Matt Moneymaker. 

 

 

 

 

And KIT declared a suit in a glass case observed over a video line was THE patty suit.  So what.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

I suppose I will break from the crowd.    Search for the truth doesn't come with a timeline.    I don't care if it's 75 years more before another PGF -quality film is obtained, Patty is what Patty is.   By the same token, if, in 75 years, someone finally is able to make a decent suit with 1967 materials and the budget Roger 'n' Bob had to work with, then the suit angle would have to be considered more seriously.   It wouldn't be proof a suit was used, it would only, finally, introduce it as even a slim possibility. 

 

We have the PGF.   We do not have a suit; we have stronger evidence that a suitable suit could not have existed than we have that one was made.   That's the state of affairs today.  

 

MIB  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, MIB said:

I suppose I will break from the crowd.    Search for the truth doesn't come with a timeline.    I don't care if it's 75 years more before another PGF -quality film is obtained, Patty is what Patty is.   By the same token, if, in 75 years, someone finally is able to make a decent suit with 1967 materials and the budget Roger 'n' Bob had to work with, then the suit angle would have to be considered more seriously.   It wouldn't be proof a suit was used, it would only, finally, introduce it as even a slim possibility. 

 

We have the PGF.   We do not have a suit; we have stronger evidence that a suitable suit could not have existed than we have that one was made.   That's the state of affairs today.  

 

MIB  

 

Going with what you have said, let me ask a Q:

 

How easy should it be to prove Patty is a man in a suit?  I would think the easiest way to prove or highly suggest a hoax (replicate Patty in a same or similar way).  <-----  How easy is that to do?

 

Here is how one busts a hoax, by doing:

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

To find to absolute truth you would have the claimant perform to surgery under controlled conditions and verify the outcome.

 

That's how they got Uri. He couldn't bend spoons under controlled conditions. It had nothing to do with the fact that others appeared to be able to bend spoons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I think a stunt man has explained how to best replicate the suit/creature.

Take a very large  skilled mime ,glue on the hair to the skin . Sounds much more convincing than any of these  awful suits we have been exposed to. Anyway, to answer the question the time has arrived. Either it can't be done or  the right person has not attempted  for the simple fact , lack of interest in the subject or already has decided  the suit is  a fraud . Not requiring any further effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

How easy should it be to prove Patty is a man in a suit?

 

It is incredibly straightforward IF that's a man in a suit.    They've had 50 years to figure out how to do it.   Why hasn't it been done?  

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

^ exactly.  PGf detractors tell us (over and over again) that the "Patty suit" has never been replicated because 'no one really cares, blah blah blah.'  8 )~

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

^ Only a handful of people don't care at all. 

 

The legend is better left alive in my opinion. Think of all of the TV shows, bigfoot conventions, authors and tourist traps that would be out of business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×