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

Twist
2 hours ago, xspider1 said:

 

The big dogs may not care to replicate the PGf subject specifically, however, with the ongoing (and significant) interest in Bigfoot, it would be senseless for the big dogs not to create a costume that at least closely approaches her realism, if they could.  And, they have not done that.  PGf denialists try to brush that off, but it never goes away.

 

Why would it be senseless for a "big dog"

not to create a costume that's Patty like?  

 

Why would they take any interest in anything but that which makes them money???

 

 The PGF is only a big deal to proponents, there is no general consensus amongst the US population that Patty is some benchmark that a suit designer would use to excercise their skill.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ It would be senseless for a big dog "monster suit maker" not to create a Bigfoot costume as realistic as the PGf subject (if they could) because she is the gold standard.  Like it or not, it is almost unanimously agreed (by those who have actually looked into it) that if Patty had been a Bigfoot costume then she would be the best ever.  And here we are now, 50 years later!  I see that as a problem for PGf skeptics, detractors, skofftics and for those who just can't be bothered looking for the truth. 

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

^^^^ 2 weekends back I watched "War for the Planet of the Apes".    I enjoyed it a lot.  Despite my ability to suspend belief and just enjoy a movie,  IMHO the Cesar character was not as anatomically realistic as Patty even 50 years later and with the incredible budget they had to work with.   Says much to me.

 

MIB

Share this post


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

^ It would be senseless for a big dog "monster suit maker" not to create a Bigfoot costume as realistic as the PGf subject (if they could) because she is the gold standard.  Like it or not, it is almost unanimously agreed (by those who have actually looked into it) that if Patty had been a Bigfoot costume then she would be the best ever.  And here we are now, 50 years later!  I see that as a problem for PGf skeptics, detractors, skofftics and for those who just can't be bothered looking for the truth. 

 

Im glad we agree, the proponents or "those that actually  look into it" consider Patty the gold standard.  The rest, probably including most "big dogs" don't care enough to exert resources into it.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Most of the big guns might not care enough these days, but back in 1967, they most likely couldn't create it if they tried. Those actual big guns back in 1967/68 said they couldn't do it.

 

An we should remember one important thing, Roger was a cowboy, not a Hollywood costume maker, so if he could do it in 67, why hasn't any other average joe been able to come up with somethin similar ? We've heard of folks startin' a suit...then for one reason or another...we get...hey look, a butterfly ! ;);) 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
3 hours ago, Twist said:

 

Im glad we agree, the proponents or "those that actually  look into it" consider Patty the gold standard.  The rest, probably including most "big dogs" don't care enough to exert resources into it.  

 

So only proponents actually look into it??  And, only proponents consider the PGf to be the gold standard of Bigfoot evidence?  And, the rest don't care?   Sorry Twist, but those arguments are tired, false and not cutting it anymore.  The fallacy of there not being enough resources allocated in attempts to debunk the PGf are just wrong, plain and simple.  What's right is that there have been many attempts to discredit, debunk, ridicule and/or replicate the film and all of those have failed.

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

I think of a bigfoot show on Discovery or whatever.  A grey haired lady anthropologist talked about food supply being the issue on why she doubted bigfoot.  She called the PNW. a wasteland.  Then they showed her watching the PGF.  she talked of the walk being really weird.  I got the impression she was a little impressed.  I also got the impression she had never really bothered to even look at the PGF before.  <=======. That is probably true for many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
10 hours ago, xspider1 said:

^ It would be senseless for a big dog "monster suit maker" not to create a Bigfoot costume as realistic as the PGf subject (if they could) because she is the gold standard.  Like it or not, it is almost unanimously agreed (by those who have actually looked into it) that if Patty had been a Bigfoot costume then she would be the best ever.  And here we are now, 50 years later!  I see that as a problem for PGf skeptics, detractors, skofftics and for those who just can't be bothered looking for the truth. 

 

You're right; it's been said if the film showed a man made suit, the suit was far ahead of anything else seen up to that time. That's why I've posed in the past if a suitmaker was capable of a fur suit that was much more sophisticated than anything anyone else had

made, then why didn't he capitalize on his talents and make more of his sophisticated suits for movies, etc?

If it was a man made suit, it requires Roger, the suitmaker, the actor in the suit (sorry, Bob H.), and Bob Gimlin to all conspire that none of them will spill the beans for the rest of their life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

^^^

 

I think of a bigfoot show on Discovery or whatever.  A grey haired lady anthropologist talked about food supply being the issue on why she doubted bigfoot.  She called the PNW. a wasteland.  Then they showed her watching the PGF.  she talked of the walk being really weird.  I got the impression she was a little impressed.  I also got the impression she had never really bothered to even look at the PGF before.  <=======. That is probably true for many.

When I saw the same show I had to control myself not to throw something at the TV.       The woman has probably not been West of the Mississippi.     As I recall she was a professor in some NE University.     Apparently she does not know there are bears in the PNW and they seem to do quite well surviving in this "wasteland."    She is my poster child for why science does not want to look for BF.    Scientists like her will be very fun to ridicule when someone does bring out a body.  I may even go look her up with the sole purpose to embarrass her.    What kind of excuse will they come up with?   Most likely will be why didn't someone tell us what was out there?   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
28 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

When I saw the same show I had to control myself not to throw something at the TV.       The woman has probably not been West of the Mississippi.     As I recall she was a professor in some NE University.     Apparently she does not know there are bears in the PNW and they seem to do quite well surviving in this "wasteland."    She is my poster child for why science does not want to look for BF.    Scientists like her will be very fun to ridicule when someone does bring out a body.  I may even go look her up with the sole purpose to embarrass her.    What kind of excuse will they come up with?   Most likely will be why didn't someone tell us what was out there?   

 

This is the state of bigfootery?  A scientist doesn't agree with your take on the subject so you are going to wait for her to be wrong then embarrass her?  

 

That stance itself is embarrassing.  

 

Keep in mind it's been 50 years since your gold standard was produced and has yet to be repeated since in a similar manner.  I think she has some ground to stand on in regards to her skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

Twist -

 

... no, not " doesn't agree with your take on the subject" ... that's a very disingenuous spin you've put on it.   This so-called scientist, as described, is ignorant of the region, ignorant of the topic, has chosen to remain so, yet passes judgement putting the weight of her profession on that judgement anyway.   That's a lot more than merely disagreeing.  

 

MIB

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

My take?    She stated a large animal could not survive in the Wilds of the Pacific Northwest just because there is not sufficient food sources.        Any idiot bear hunter knows that is not true.     And it certainly would be news to the Native American tribes who thrived in the region.  The only one that should be embarrassed is her.     

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

My take is your putting to much faith or stock into these shows that are for entertainment purposes.  There's more to be made in the pursuit for viewers than there is in the pursuit for real science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

When a scientist expresses an opinion and the reason for her assessment for that opinion, she should be held accountable.   Just because the format was a documentary not a lecture hall,   does not give her license to say preposterous things.     The history of science is that the purveyors of wrong theories are soundly ridiculed when proven wrong by their scientific peers.    The method appears to outsiders as not nice ranging to brutal,   and the winner of a competing theory which triumphs usually takes great delight in the public repudiation of the one proven wrong.     Call it academic egos or whatever but it is extremely common when theories compete for decades.        Someone may develop and devote their entire life to a theory,  only to have it proven wrong at some point by a competing one.        Other scientists in the same documentary were not as definite as that woman and hedged their judgment as to Patties authenticity.    Using words like compelling but not making judgement either way.   .They were the smart ones simply because the P/G film is not good enough to be definitive either way when scientific standards are applied.    But to take a stand based on something provably wrong like food sources,   really set her up to destroy her own reputation.    

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^^

 

I can't remember her name.  Someone will offer her up or the actual video.  She did feel a gorilla as an example has a big brain so any big brain animal would have to have large caloric needs. 

 

The point made on bears is a good one by Swwasas.  I take it that all you are really saying is If an animal cannot survive in the PNW then how could a bear?  That makes a great point and it was lost on her.  I think she was specifically thinking gorillas so who knows.  It is hard to think a smart person on TV cannot see the irony in all of this.

 

The larger point was that she seemed -after rendering her opinion - to look at the PGF.  It seemed like the viewing was the first time she had seen it.  Now, she did immediately state the gait was weird or words to that effect.  This is why at least for me I Q just how much she had even looked into the PGF.  It was like she said "It can't exist,...... Oh, Wow, that film is interesting".

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×