Jump to content
Squatchy McSquatch

What Sparked Your Interest in the PGF?

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch

For me it started with the Six Million Dollar Man Episode. It must've been a re-run because the original episode aired 2 months before my 3rd birthday in 76. So lets say 77 and I was four. I was already into monsters, so the episode stood out as being really cool. Shortly after they did a promo blitz for an hour long show about bigfoot. They hyped a film of a real live bigfoot. The only film at that!

 

I remember sitting through the entire episode waiting for 'The Bigfoot Movie' that had been promised to me. Finally I watched the grainy shaky footage and the show ended before I could even register my disappointment. Even on our old console TV it looked fake to me. Still bought Patterson's book when I found it at a flea market, but never bought into any of it. I saw it as a comfy, campy niche. Signed out many bf books from the library, but it all came across as pop culture meets bad science.

 

Never gave any thought about the PGF until 2000, hauling a trailer to Toronto listening to morning radio. Something about Cliff Crook and a bell-shaped fastener. I thought 'cool' and went about my day.

 

Fast forward about three years and I finally went on the internet. Decided one day to look up the bell fastener fiasco. A few more clicks led me to the Bob vs Bob saga, Cibachromes, PGF mpeg I found on Limewire and a copy of MOB. I didn't know about message boards back then.

 

I found this site in 2012 and here I am.


So... what's your story?

 

beano_bigfoot_zps3d428956.jpg

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

It's an amazing piece of film. I love mysteries.

 

The fact that it was filmed in 1967 adds another layer of possibilities.

 

In those days, California  was as magical as possibly can be...

 

Very close to home for me.

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I was 7 and saw it on the local cinema. I thought it was real and very scary. Of course as I grew and researched more. I really came to appreciate the amazing film. 

I still enjoy it. As I  became more educated it became quite clear that the creature simply does not exist. The kid in me still hopes and wishes they did. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Kind of funny. 

 

50 years later a bunch of complete strangers still talking about the PGF. 

 

Over our computers and phones!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Back in 1962 I hit my 13th birthday and my folks bought Ivan T. Sanderson's Abominable Snowmen: Legend Comes To Life". The size of the book was impressive enough at 539 pages but what was inside truly got to me. Read thing twice over a couple of years. Shortly after it got left behind on a move to the West Coast and enigma kind of all went away even after viewing the PGF. UFO's were also on my radar at about the same age, 10-14 years old. But they two fell by the wayside.

 

Fast forward to the Fall of 2011 and I found myself wondering if there had been any progress on the UFO front. Well, no there hadn't, but the paranormal websites also had threads on Bigfoot and so I asked the same question about progress and after a couple of years came here in June 2014. Been here since. Always looking for the science and trying to find a logical answer, a logical argument, and a logical way forward, toward solving the mystery.

 

There's a lot that says the creature doesn't exist. But there are things that cannot be reasoned away either. Everything bHAS to make sense or the door remains open. After three and a half years of digging deep, working on John Green's database revision, and studying the PGF, pro and con, I came upon the idea regarding shoulder width. And so, I'm still here. I have to say that between UFO's and Sasquatch I have learned a ton of citizen science and overall I have to say the engagement of the community has been an totally enjoyable learning experience and I thank you all for that, skeptic and proponent alike. And I have learned much. Even wrote a book.

 

Great topic Mr. Squatchy McSquatch, thank you

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ I agree, excellent question/topic, McSquatch, +1.  I generally don't like anything you say : )~ just joking, lol!  But this is pretty good, I have to admit.  The thing that initially sparked my interest in the PGf, was the look-back.  I saw the film on TV when I was a kid in the seventies I think and then, at least for me, it faded into the wood-work for about 30 years.  Then, around 2005, I saw a clip of the look-back sequence again and it really gave me the heebie-jeebies :blink:.  She seemed to look right at me and I remember thinking 'there's no way that thing is fake'!  So, I started looking into it and soon found the original BFF.  Wow!  I started learning so much from so many intelligent people who had already been studying the film in depth and, along with that, I was reading opinions from a lot of PGf antagonists who really didn't seem to have a clue.  Anyway, thanks McSquatch, it will be interesting to see where this goes.  :thumbsup:

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
45 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

^ I agree, excellent question/topic, McSquatch, +1.  I generally don't like anything you say : )~ just joking, lol! 

 

I generally don't like anything he says, either, xspider....with this one exception.  And.....no joking. ;) 

 

 

Quote

But this is pretty good, I have to admit.  The thing that initially sparked my interest in the PGf, was the look-back.  I saw the film on TV when I was a kid in the seventies I think and then, at least for me, it faded into the wood-work for about 30 years.  Then, around 2005, I saw a clip of the look-back sequence again and it really gave me the heebie-jeebies :blink:.  She seemed to look right at me and I remember thinking 'there's no way that thing is fake'!  So, I started looking into it and soon found the original BFF.  Wow!  I started learning so much from so many intelligent people who had already been studying the film in depth and, along with that, I was reading opinions from a lot of PGf antagonists who really didn't seem to have a clue.  Anyway, thanks McSquatch, it will be interesting to see where this goes.  :thumbsup:

 

 

I remember the first time I saw the footage....(sometime in the early 70's)....and it was the 'look back' that made me think the film was a hoax. Whatever tv show it was....it was showing a lengthy clip of the film....and, just as the camera finally became steady, the subject turned back to look at the camera.....and that made me think that the coincidental timing was a planned thing.....i.e....a hoax. 

But, I also remember that I didn't....(and never have)....thought the subject looked like a "bad suit". The subject itself has always looked realistic/right, to me. It was just that co-incidental timing that made me suspect the film was a hoax.  

 

Many years later....looking at the analysis on the BFF.....I first looked to see if there was any finger movement on the filmed subject...and saw the F61/F72 finger movement animation......showing clear curling of the fingers. That's when my thinking on the film changed, to it most likely being legitimate. The clear calf-muscle bulging, around F307, reinforced that thinking. 

 

And....it's only gotten better, from there. :popcorn: 

(Despite the fact that somewhere on the Planet.....a few random, un-named guys occasionally say...."it looks like a bloke in a suit to me".)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

That Q I think depends on your age.

 

As a kid in elementary school in the mid 1970s I was mostly interested in the Loch Ness Monster.  Then previews of the Peter Graves Bigfoot film came out on TV when was about 9 or so.  There may have been a second film about the Bigfoot about that same time.  i just remember a preview of a "Bigfoot movie" which had a big hairy arm crash through a window of a lady sitting on a couch. This may have been that same Peter Graves Movie or another Bigfoot movie.    I remember going to see the Peter Graves movie at the theater.  This was first time I saw the PGF.  With it, there was a younger Grover Kranz telling how Patty was likely real.   I was fascinated.   Then over the next several years there was not any exposure really possible to the subject and esp. no exposure to the PGF.  As years passed from the Peter Graves show, the less I cared.  I just thought some guys got Bigfoot on camera.  I might stumble across some book on Monsters which might have one photo of Patty.  Otherwise Patty was not on TV. (and we all know we only had 3 channels in those days).   By the time the Golden Era of the Mid 1980s hit, people actually rented VCRs at local video stores and quickly purchased one after the cost came down.  This was the first time really since the Peter graves era a person could actually get a second look at the PGF.  Nicer still, there was the ability to play it many times, freeze frame, reverse, slow, and so on when you rented one of the few videos available at the video store.   Sometime during this time I rented a movie or two which usually included Grove Kranz and the PGF.

 

During this era I occasionally watch a video which had the PGF.  I was soon a college student, I looked at it with more scrutiny but was even more impressed in spite of it of being uncertain if it was real.   This evolved to occasional viewing later on a DVD or two with even better DVD looks years later.  The viewing or renting of a movie like this was more of an occasional mood thing maybe once every few  years or so in the late 1980s/ early 1990s which included other subjects like Mysteries and Monsters like Nessie.  Even when the internet first came out (AOL dail up) Bigfoot was the last thing I was thinking about and there was no "Boards" or Forums to speak of. 

 

Only after Discovery Channel and other channels now with Meldrum and a new batch of the next Grover Kranz   (Anna Nikaris and others) did the subject now get a fresh look in a very fair weighing of the PGF and the possibility Bigfoot could even exist.   This was in the 1990s and beyond.

 

Much later, I saw Bill Munns on TV and I emailed him a Q about the PGF.  He was able to answer my Q and take his time to do so which was kind.   He made me aware of the BFF in that email. I had stumbled across it before but barely read it.   Shortly after Munns Email reply, I joined the BFF hoping to hear both sides of the story on the PGF.   I expected to hear a lot from the Skeptic side.  Over time I was shocked about how weak their case has been.  About that same time I strained to watch the X Creatures show by Packman.  What a disaster for the Patty-is-fake- world.  

 

Over the last couple years on the BFF I have learned a lot.  I have also learned a lot from the skeptics on points of interest involving this film.   I will say in spite of all of this the PGF can really Take a Punch.  It's like Rocky.  It just wont go down.

 

Here we are today. My feelings would be best described by anatomist Grieve who said he had the feeling going  back and fourth from total acceptance after his educated viewing of the film to some emotional anger that this just can't be real.  I leave open the possibility the PGF could be fake and leave open the possibility it could be real.  I don't hold on to any view. 

 

Patty can take a punch guys.   She has gone the distance and is still standing until a rematch can be scheduled.  

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

When fleeing, animals very often look back at the source of their fear/apprehension, Sweaty.  I guess they naturally want to know what their perceived antagonist is up to.  I've seen that with dogs, cats, bear, cattle and even a flying squirrel!  It would have been less convincing if she had not looked back, imo.  But of course, Roger thought of everything.  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

My original exposure to the film was from a Discovery channel documentary, but I didn’t find it interesting or develop an opinion on the costume vs not costume issue until I became familiar with some of the arguments that were available online. Despite carefully studying the film and developing an opinion that film subject isn’t a costume, I didn’t have an in-depth understanding of the issue until I did a re-evaluation of it in 2015. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Squatchy, I agree with previous comments, it's a good topic. It took my second and third time of seeing the PGF sometime in the 1980's on tv when it really piqued my interest. The first time I saw the film, the tv show didn't really go into much depth about it and you didn't get a very good look at the figure so I didn't really think anything about it one way or the other. The next couple of times I saw it, they went into more detail about the film and I paid closer attention. I do remember the first thing that stuck in my mind about the figure in those early viewings was it's bulk and my interest deepened.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

I was not particularly focused on the film prior to coming to BFF.  I'd seen it quite a few times but it just was what it was.  I didn't realize anyone was foolish enough to question the authenticity of a film and a costume that Hollywood and the BBC couldn't duplicate and even now, *if they can*, *still have not duplicated.*   That there was an ongoing debate came as shock and, frankly, raises doubts about the intelligence and intellectual integrity of those hard line denialists I've come to know (endearingly) as the "scoftic" cadre.   Human nature never fails to amaze, sometimes for the better, sometimes for  the worse.

 

My current/primary interest in the film ... the "subject" is a biological match for "something" I've seen in the woods twice.  Not identical, mind you, but "form-consistent", as an adult female, with the adult male I saw decades ago and with the adolescent I saw a couple years ago.   

 

As far as I'm concerned, the film is legit.  100%.   My focus is in trying to learn what I can from it about what I've seen in person.   

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Nice to see a topic where people aren't fighting or insulting each other, so I'll gladly contribute.

 

I remember seeing a footprint in show, described as from the Abominable Snowman, which first piqued my curiosity in cryptid entities.

 

I can't pin down exactly when I was first aware of the PGF, but I would assume it was the Feb. 1968 issue of Argosy magazine that featured stills from the film. I was a film student in college, and had learned basic makeup and was fascinated by makeup and general special effects. The big publicity push was on for the release of Planet of the Apes, and the makeup work was a major part of the publicity push. Then 2001 Space Oddessy  came out in April 1968, and I was intensely fascinated by the apes in the "Dawn of Man" opening sequence. So I was making mental comparisons between the POTA makeups and the 2001 makeups. So in that environment, I was occasionally comparing the PGF to these thoughtful evaluations of the ape makeups. Never recall thinking it was a "cheap suit", but don't recall any particular confidence it was real. I was sort of undecided, for lack of doing any kind of analysis.

 

In the mid 70's, I was director of a school training makeup artists, and I did some experimental projects to push my own skills, and I did a "Bigfoot" model (1:6th scale) and then a full body figure about 8 feet tall, simply on the assumption I might one day be asked about doing such a character for a film, so I wanted something in my portfolio showing experience with the subject. Patty was not a factor in my design. I also had a brief peripheral involvement with the 1976 King Kong remake, and that also challenged me to think about ape suits. I assume the PGF was occasionally compared, in my mind, but nothing stands out.

 

In the later 80's, I was working for a theme park robotics company, and was asked to try and develop concepts for possible robotic shows we could build ourselves and rent to museums and other facilities, like Dinamation was renting dinosaurs for shows. One show idea I developed was the real world technology associated with cryptozoology, how sonar was used to look for Nessie, what technologies might be used to search for bigfoot, how the idea of the mythical Roc might be associated with Elephant Bird eggs (if you found an elephant bird egg, and assumed it was a raptor egg, not a ratite egg, and compared it to an eagle's egg, how big would the raptor be full grown, and it would calculate out to about a 30-35 ft. wingspan, like the legendary Roc. So part of this show concept looked at the PGF and so I refreshed my awareness of the film. Still don't recall any definitive decision as to it being real, but never once felt it was an obvious fake.

 

Jumping to around 2000, I recall being interviewed by a newspaper about the PGF, and by that time, my opinion had strengthened as to it being real, because I'd done some ape full body and masks for a TV commercial (a parody of the 2001 ape scene) and that experience with the hassle of getting the head/neck blend smooth made me connect it with Patty's lookback, and how perfect her neck was after the lookback. So in this interview, I offered my opinion the PGf was likely real because ape suits and mask in 1967 just didn't have the spandex stretch fur needed to pull off a neck smoothness Patty displayed.

 

Jump to 2008, I read an article in the LA Times about Daniel perez and his research, and became curious if anybody doing that research had actually talked in depth with somebody who actually build apesuits. In preparation of talking to Perez, I did an internet search on the PGf, which lead me to the BFF and the wealth of photos posted here. Once I saw the depth of the discussions, and the wealth of still photos available for analysis, I decided to put all options back on the table and consider if Patty was real or fake. I did seriously consider every skeptical argument to say Patty's a fake, but just couldn't find them persuasive, in real world terms of how suits are designed, build, and worked on set during filming.

 

I know it's a common claim I'm a "believer" and thus biased, but the truth is I actually continually look for evidence the PGF is fake. But the claims and "proofs" I keep seeing just don't add up, and the analysis processes leading to a conclusion she's real keep showing a positive result that seems more persuasive. I'm still open to a proof she's a fake, but it would have to be able to explain why all the film analysis pointing to it being real is flawed, and so far, that hasn't happened.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist

Like Bill, the Argosy photos had quite an effect on me, as an early teen I expected Sasquatch might be real based on the girth of the individual.  At the time I suppose most thought it to be a freak of the PNW.  Quite the surprise when I dived back into things in about 2006.   Then, one thing led to another and seeing the graphic moving pictures and research efforts made it seem more real than just a print in a glossy mag.  The lore of something tossing oil drums around construction sites seemed to hit home too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Here are a couple of images that were in the 1968 National Wildlife Magazine article...

 

 

NATIONAL_WILDLIFE_April-_May1968_Two_Fra

 

 

Those images, and the Argosy images were of pretty good quality. I'm guessing they were made from a 1st generation copy of the film. 

 

Here is a link to an article, about the article.....from "Bigfoot's Blog" website...

 

BIGFOOT'S bLOG - National Wildlife Article

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×