Jump to content
Squatchy McSquatch

What Sparked Your Interest in the PGF?

Recommended Posts

Backdoc
BFF Donor
27 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

^

 

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

 

 

I like what I am seeing here. I can understand though how someone just limited to this could look at just this image and say,"It's too blurry" or "It looks like a man in a suit" or whatever.  I can see just from the still images they might be highly accepting if some expert told them, "Its a man in as suit"   

 

But...

 

If a person has a chance to see the actual moving pics, that is, the film, then it is harder to think it is a fake and it is harder still once it's viewed to be open to just accept someone saying it is fake.

 

We need to keep in mind early on still pics would be all they have to go on.  We take for granted we can use super slow motion now and even access to STABLIZED view of the PGF.   Unfortunately many in the public had already jumped ship at the level of these early still pics and never got beyond them.    Limited just by the still pics, I can see how someone could be susceptible to the talk it was a hoax.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

I'm not trying to steer things here but this is a very good thread and we all need to be careful, me included, to not let it slip into a "Patty is real" thing. Or have a dialogue about not understanding how someone could say hoax or no hoax.  Just knowing the history of how one got interested in the PGF is certainly interesting enough by itself. 

 

  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
36 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

I like what I am seeing here. I can understand though how someone just limited to this could look at just this image and say  .... "It looks like a man in a suit" or whatever.  I can see just from the still images they might be highly accepting if some expert told them, "Its a man in as suit"   

 

 

 

Which "man in a suit" does Patty look like, there, Backdoc??? 

 

I can see skeptics on forums saying that....'cause I see them saying that, all the time. ;)  

 

But, I have yet to see a guy wearing a monkey suit showing that level of realistic body contour....(especially on the backside of the body). 

 

 

I think xspider said something once, to this effect....."If Patty looks like a guy in a suit, then shouldn't there be a picture of a guy in a suit, that looks like Patty??  

 

Where is that picture, exactly? :popcorn: 

 

 

3 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I'm not trying to steer things here but this is a very good thread and we all need to be careful, me included, to not let it slip into a "Patty is real" thing. Or have a dialogue about not understanding how someone could say hoax or no hoax.  Just knowing the history of how one got interested in the PGF is certainly interesting enough by itself. 

 

  

 

 

I posted those images, hiflier...because they go hand-in-hand with the topic of this thread.  For many people, their first views of the PGF happened back in those good ol' days, of the late 60's, and the 70's. 

 

It's just a bit of nostalgia.....complete with "realism"....and a sense of awe, and wonder.  :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
23 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

"....and a sense of awe, and wonder.  :) 

 

It certainly been my reaction as well and why I got MORE interested in the PGF after joining the BFF. What's funny is that I never really devolped much more than that on my own. Just accepted that what the images showed was something incredible. It wasn't until I got here that I began to see both sides of the debate. In retrospect it is a debate I should have been having with myself all along but for some reason never had that internal dialogue. And THAT'S a part of my history I'm looking closer at now. It's a secondary fallout from studying the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Better late, than never, hiflier! :) 

 

Despite being suspicious of it being a hoax....(given the coincidental timing of the look-back, right after the camera steadied)....I remember getting a feeling, that's a little hard to describe....when I saw the film for the first, or second time. 

 

The subject looked very realistic, to me....and hence...the possibility of a near-human species still existing in that vast wilderness, where it was filmed......created a surreal type of feeling, for me. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Good stuff guys, keep it up.  :)

 

We used to have a couple of posters who saw the PGF on tour but I can't remember their usernames at the moment.

 

This got me wondering what the demographic of a Patterson audience was. Certainly, many adults in attendance have passed on, but I'm sure there were a lot of younger people there who may still be around. The question is how many of them would be expected to be active on the internet and is there a way to reach them?

 

I've been brainstorming something to try on reddit; reaching out with a thread in attempt to find people who actually attended the live presentation. Yes the whole thing could turn into nothing or become a ****storm of trolling, but there might be some interesting things to learn.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

They are some good quality.  Can’t help but notice the lower leg looks very long.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
3 hours ago, hiflier said:

I'm not trying to steer things here but this is a very good thread and we all need to be careful, me included, to not let it slip into a "Patty is real" thing. Or have a dialogue about not understanding how someone could say hoax or no hoax.  Just knowing the history of how one got interested in the PGF is certainly interesting enough by itself. 

 

  

That is an outstanding post. I could not agree more. 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
5 hours ago, hiflier said:

I'm not trying to steer things here but this is a very good thread and we all need to be careful, me included, to not let it slip into a "Patty is real" thing. Or have a dialogue about not understanding how someone could say hoax or no hoax.  Just knowing the history of how one got interested in the PGF is certainly interesting enough by itself. 

 

  

 

This thread was started by a scofftic scourge, ;)  we've made it to page two and nobody's fighting... I say, Let the Good Times Roll...

 

 

 

outforastrol.gif

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Why you little scofftic scourge you! :)  Thanks for the B.B. video, saw him live about ten years ago and the guy was still wailin' out the blues. Great show. At the time he said he was 78 and the band had told him it was OK to sit down. Sit he said he was sitting down as some lucky guy brought out 'Lucille' and handed her to him. The rest was pure blues history, man.

 

Aaaannnd, as I have said so many times before, that Patty girl was such a hottie. Bloke in a suit or not ;) Thank you, too, Mr. McSquatch, for such a cool thread. Been smilin' a LOT. Sooooo unlike me LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape
5 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

Despite being suspicious of it being a hoax....(given the coincidental timing of the look-back, right after the camera steadied)....

 

I believe Bob Gimlin said it looked back when he crossed the creek with his horse and dismounted.

 

Quote

The subject looked very realistic, to me....and hence...the possibility of a near-human species still existing in that vast wilderness, where it was filmed......created a surreal type of feeling, for me. 

 

I have serious doubts about the film but the thing that makes me not rule it a positive hoax is the fact no one can seem to recreate it. It's sort of in limbo for me, probably a hoax but maybe not.

 

As to the topic, can't recall when I became interested in it. It's sort of always been there. I've always had an interest in sci-fi and such from a young age and used to seek out anything along those lines, like this film, Erik Von Daniken books and the movies. Any book or movie about the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, Yeti, BF.

 

If Squatchy doesn't mind, I'm going to add a second question...

 

What one word would you use to describe the PGF?

 

Mine would be, iconic.

 

 

 

Edited by Rockape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Outstanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I guess I’m going to have to be bearer of bad news.....pure dog turd dipped in chocolate. Take this olive branch thread of yers Squatchy and shove it where the sun don’t shine. 

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295766&page=44

 

SquatchyMcsquatch wrote:

 

Former FX artist Bill Munns is now running a sweatshop/workshop in Vietnam . Trying out a 'deep/machine learning' patent. 

It will provide Mr. Munns Bigfoot bucks because:

"I am 100% positive and confident the PGF is an authentic filming of a real encounter with a biologically novel entity, and is not a faked film with a human in a costume. I have explored a tremendous number of ways a film could be faked, and what indications of such might be analyzed, and found zero indications of such in the film. I have considered many indicators of what would be consistent with a true and spontaneously filmed event, and find many indications consistent with a true event."

 

====/====//=//////////==========

 

Former forum member/former fx guy returns to Bigfootery with a chip still on his shoulders. Still the skeptics' fault. This forum was mean to him. 100% not a guy in a suit, but not necessarily a Bigfeet either.

Doubling down on stupid for 10 years now.

That's it in a nutshell Harry.

It's been a slow year for Bigfoot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Well, everyone knows Patty played Teles, exclusively, not LPs, so yeah, the film is obviously fake.  But my interest was first piqued when I heard her in, what, '69? She shredded this insane bridge...pure un-tweaked tone, no pedals...I think it was a rare first set Estimated/Eyes extended jam. I knew she was the real deal then. Loved her every since.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
12 hours ago, norseman said:

I guess I’m going to have to be bearer of bad news.....pure dog turd dipped in chocolate. Take this olive branch thread of yers Squatchy and shove it where the sun don’t shine. 

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295766&page=44

 

SquatchyMcsquatch wrote:

 

Former FX artist Bill Munns is now running a sweatshop/workshop in Vietnam . Trying out a 'deep/machine learning' patent. 

It will provide Mr. Munns Bigfoot bucks because:

"I am 100% positive and confident the PGF is an authentic filming of a real encounter with a biologically novel entity, and is not a faked film with a human in a costume. I have explored a tremendous number of ways a film could be faked, and what indications of such might be analyzed, and found zero indications of such in the film. I have considered many indicators of what would be consistent with a true and spontaneously filmed event, and find many indications consistent with a true event."

 

====/====//=//////////==========

 

Former forum member/former fx guy returns to Bigfootery with a chip still on his shoulders. Still the skeptics' fault. This forum was mean to him. 100% not a guy in a suit, but not necessarily a Bigfeet either.

Doubling down on stupid for 10 years now.

That's it in a nutshell Harry.

It's been a slow year for Bigfoot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Different topic, different board, different rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×