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

SweatyYeti

^

 

Okay, masterbarber....I won't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter
On 8/5/2017 at 9:41 AM, norseman said:

 

Well, I too see a problem there. 

 

If as a primate Sasquatch is a omnivore? What does it do in winter? Does it hibernate like a bear? Does it hunt like a cougar? Does it chew on deciduous trees and shrubs like a moose?

 

And where is the evidence that it is out hunting and foraging in the snowy landscape? Or does all the population migrate to the ocean?

 

In my opinion, I feel that BF would mirror very closely what the First Peoples' did to survive (or perhaps more accurately, the First Peoples would mirror what the BF's did).  Which is to migrate/traverse to better areas containing more food.  Living in WI, I feel strongly that we have times where BF migrate, following the Mississippi River Basin into Northern MN, WI, MI and Canada in the spring, then back to southern areas in the Winter.

 

But that is purely speculation on my part.

On 8/5/2017 at 10:14 AM, Martin said:

 

It would be negligent of me not to mention that in order for bears to reach their caloric needs the are often in direct contact with humans.

 

This year alone 34 bears have been shot in the Denver area because of conflict with humans. 

 

Often?  I would say that those occurrences are rare on the whole.  Happens yes, but rare.  And of course, BF allegedly does come in direct contact with humans....so there's that....

Share this post


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

 

In my opinion, I feel that BF would mirror very closely what the First Peoples' did to survive (or perhaps more accurately, the First Peoples would mirror what the BF's did).  Which is to migrate/traverse to better areas containing more food.  Living in WI, I feel strongly that we have times where BF migrate, following the Mississippi River Basin into Northern MN, WI, MI and Canada in the spring, then back to southern areas in the Winter.

 

But that is purely speculation on my part.

 

Often?  I would say that those occurrences are rare on the whole.  Happens yes, but rare.  And of course, BF allegedly does come in direct contact with humans....so there's that....

 

I should have been more specific. 59 bears put down in the Colorado in 2016.  https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18bears.html

Drought caused a berry shortage and the bears are scrambling for food to meet their caloric needs.

 

34 so far in 2017. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/16/bear-human-conflicts-colorado/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

^Well, with a population density of 1 bear per 10 square miles, I would say that those numbers do indeed reflect a rare occurrence (per capita).  Of course not every bear that comes into someone's backyard gets shot.  One catch is if that we're going to assume that bear interaction can reflect BF interaction, there is an implied assumption that they are of equivalent intelligence and capability regarding food gathering.

 

Perhaps BF's are better at foraging for food, so they don't have to resort to the human interaction as often.....

 

As you are WELL aware Martin, tons of speculation on this subject!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The number of Skeptics who are trying to prove Patty is a hoax by actually making a same (similar) suit are so small, they probably would fit in a telephone booth.

 

How can they determine it cannot be done when they are not trying to do it in the first place?

 

As far as the Stan Winston- types out there, I have to believe they do not want to take it on because of the quiet fear if they are not able to do it, it will hurt their reputation.  After all, to the many who think it is a suit, they would say, "Stan couldn't do what 2 cowboys did"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Many skeptics are operating under a logic fallacy.        They think if they can prove that Patty is a costume then the whole BF thing simply goes away.     Whether or not Patty is a costume has no bearing on the real question,   which is if BF exists in North America.  If someone spent 10s of thousands on a believable costume or CGI production that still has no bearing on the existence of BF.  Perhaps some skeptics know that and simply are not willing to take the risk to spend that kind of money producing a costume or CGI film,    then have someone haul in a body the next week.    It is easier and cheaper to make unsubstantiated claims of a cowboy produced costume and hoax film.     If the body shows up,  they will continue to claim the P/G was a hoax, just to support their own credibility.    You can bet that they will attribute differences seen on the body on the lab table to Patty and maintain that is proof Patty was a costume.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Skeptics of the PGF sure do get painted in a pretty broad stroke around here.  Lol. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 It is easier and cheaper to make unsubstantiated claims of a cowboy produced costume and hoax film.

 

You have no idea how true that is BD- or maybe you do. There is quite simply too much going on in the PG film for anyone who made a suit back then to think about in order to make the 'hoax' look real. Say someone DID make the costume just for discussion. There is no way that all of the separately debated features could have been thought of in order for the debate to continue today as it does.

 

Costume:

 

No muscle movement under any part of it.

No defined left calf muscle.

No thigh muscle movement- herniated or not

No accented lower leg angle to upper leg when walking

 

These are just a small few of the things that would have to be worked out- never mind swinging breasts. These things and so much more would have to be thought of, worked out, tested, filmed often enough to create even a modicum of realism, and then get everything hiked out to Bluff creek once all of those details and others had been worked out. It's one thing to create a suit, it's entirely another to perfect everything and install the necessary detailed movement of all of the individual body parts in order to make the hoaxed suit work in a natural fashion. Logic says that in those days it was impossible to create all of that but more importantly, it was impossible to even think of all of the little things that would be involved for the sake of realism- to the extent that there is STILL two sides of the fence that exists to this day and not just between proponents and skeptics either. 

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

You have no idea how true that is BD- or maybe you do. There is quite simply too much going on in the PG film for anyone who made a suit back then to think about in order to make the 'hoax' look real. Say someone DID make the costume just for discussion. There is no way that all of the separately debated features could have been thought of in order for the debate to continue today as it does.

 

Costume:

 

No muscle movement under any part of it.

No defined left calf muscle.

No thigh muscle movement- herniated or not

No accented lower leg angle to upper leg when walking

 

These are just a small few of the things that would have to be worked out- never mind swinging breasts. These things and so much more would have to be thought of, worked out, tested, filmed often enough to create even a modicum of realism, and then get everything hiked out to Bluff creek once all of those details and others had been worked out. It's one thing to create a suit, it's entirely another to perfect everything and install the necessary detailed movement of all of the individual body parts in order to make the hoaxed suit work in a natural fashion. Logic says that in those days it was impossible to create all of that but more importantly, it was impossible to even think of all of the little things that would be involved for the sake of realism- to the extent that there is STILL two sides of the fence that exists to this day and not just between proponents and skeptics either. 

 

 

Very true, hiflier. :thumbsup:

 

The point you made is a significant one. There are many ways in which suits on people look like obvious suits. A lack of realistic/dynamic body contour is just one of those ways.

 

These suits, as examples...all exhibit the common trait of straight/un-contoured limbs....(either the arms, or the legs....or both)...

 

Baggy_Boys1.jpg

 

 

It is extremely difficult to produce a suit which exhibits realistic body contour on all of the limbs....and when seen from multiple angles...(around the body).

 

 

Patty....on the other hand.....exhibits curving, dynamic, realistic body contour.....on all of her limbs, and when seen from various angles...

 

Patty_Body_Contour1.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Twist said:

Skeptics of the PGF sure do get painted in a pretty broad stroke around here.  Lol. 

 

 

Why not?! :)

 

It's cheap...easy...and fun to do. And they don't give us any reason not to....(such as...coming up with some legitimate analysis). 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
16 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

You have no idea how true that is BD- or maybe you do. There is quite simply too much going on in the PG film for anyone who made a suit back then to think about in order to make the 'hoax' look real.

 

I have no real way to know how many suit attempts there have been with any accuracy.   I can only say on the BFF which is pretty target rich on the subject only a few have been offered all laughable.

 

 

Quote

 

 

Say someone DID make the costume just for discussion. There is no way that all of the separately debated features could have been thought of in order for the debate to continue today as it does.

 

 

This is where I have to disagree and there is why:   Any suit maker knows a couple of things about the task going in.

1- the materials must be available in 1967 or before since Roger filmed it in 1967.

2- it must be a manmade effort be it real fur or fake fur.  If a man did make it then some method exists where it could be made by man again.   It is not like making a DoDo bird omelet when no DoDo birds presently exists to provide the eggs.

3- We know the end result of what it needs to look like in the end. That is why reverse engineering can be a lot easier.   When you know where you have to arrive, all you have to do is find a way to get there.  All you are going for is the look of the PGF.  The look is known.  The effect is known.  Just make something that looks good on 1967 era film.

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 0:58 PM, Backdoc said:

 

I have no real way to know how many suit attempts there have been with any accuracy.   I can only say on the BFF which is pretty target rich on the subject only a few have been offered all laughable.

 

 

 

This is where I have to disagree and there is why:   Any suit maker knows a couple of things about the task going in.

1- the materials must be available in 1967 or before since Roger filmed it in 1967.

2- it must be a manmade effort be it real fur or fake fur.  If a man did make it then some method exists where it could be made by man again.   It is not like making a DoDo bird omelet when no DoDo birds presently exists to provide the eggs.

3- We know the end result of what it needs to look like in the end. That is why reverse engineering can be a lot easier.   When you know where you have to arrive, all you have to do is find a way to get there.  All you are going for is the look of the PGF.  The look is known.  The effect is known.  Just make something that looks good on 1967 era film.

 

 

 

When I said this:

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 8:30 PM, hiflier said:

There is no way that all of the separately debated features could have been thought of in order for the debate to continue today as it does.

 

I was speaking of the guys back in 1967 making the suit. It was they that would've had to think of everything involved in the suit's construction to create Patty. But you are right, the PGF is the template for anyone trying to make a costume that moves similar or identical to the 'whatsit' in the PGF. So far, not even close, zip, zilch, nada- take your pick.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I have been told no serious effort has been made to replicate the suit due to lack of interest on the part of the ones with the means.

I was also told that you would need a giant human mime and glue the hair on his skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Who told you that.....a skeptic?? :lol: 

 

The truth of the matter is, PG.....no 'men in suits' come anywhere near the realistic aspects of Patty.....either in specific details, or in the overall appearance of a real, live creature. 

 

The reason for that is simple, and obvious....Patty is not a guy inside of a suit. 

 

In addition...that is the reason why, in 50 years....the "guy in the suit" has never come forward, and claimed his rightful place in history.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

As a matter of fact. Yes. Lol.

 

He did come forward. I just don't believe a word he says. :D

 

i don't see how that it is possible that it   is not a guy in a suit. I am reasonably convinced the creature is a mythical beast with no documented proof   of  a flesh and blood specimen not on an awesome film.

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...