Jump to content
xspider1

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax

Recommended Posts

xspider1

To double the initial efforts of the ‘popular’ thread, I’ll start with 4:

1.) The footage has been debated about 1 million times more than any known hoax.

2.) The only 2 people in the world who always said they were present said that it is not a hoax.

3.) Video production techniques, 43 years later, cannot replicate the authenticity of the subject.

4.) Countless attempts to debunk the film have been unsuccessful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

The film itself is the only reason I don't think it's a hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

I've never seen any bipedal ape/apeman/bigfoot suit look anywhere near as convincing as that to this day.......and it was taken 40 years and more ago. It just doesn't look or move like a 'man in a suit' as far as I'm concerned. It looks fluid and natural and at home in it's enviroment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

I agree. I went back to the film again to look for football shoulder pads and I just don't see any. We wore football shoulder pads in the 70's. They didn't move like Patty's shoulders move then and, after watching about 10,000 football games, I don't think shoulder pads move that way, even to this day.

There seem to be countless reasons, pertaining to what we see in the film, that make it believable and the reasons put forth not to believe it are generally along the lines of: 'Oh! Roger borrowed some money' or; 'We don't understand why Bob G had Bob H's horse.' Who really cares about that? I don't see those types of things as being any kind of proof one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have many reasons to believe it is real. The one that gets me best, is that Patty has boobs. Why in the world would anyone take the extra trouble to put breasts on a costume?

This was 1967. The Women's movement was just getting started. I don't believe any costume maker, including Roger Patterson was trying to be that PC. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fenris

To double the initial efforts of the ‘popular’ thread, I’ll start with 4:

1.) The footage has been debated about 1 million times more than any known hoax.

2.) The only 2 people in the world who always said they were present said that it is not a hoax.

3.) Video production techniques, 43 years later, cannot replicate the authenticity of the subject.

4.) Countless attempts to debunk the film have been unsuccessful.

As I've said, inconclusive now, inconclusive then, always will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

As I've said, inconclusive now, inconclusive then, always will be.

So, can we put that down as a 'maybe'?? Conclusions have already been made by 99% percent of the people who have seen it. I think that if it was a hoax then, there should be enough information in the film to prove that.

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest nycBig

I have many reasons to believe it is real. The one that gets me best, is that Patty has boobs. Why in the world would anyone take the extra trouble to put breasts on a costume?

This was 1967. The Women's movement was just getting started. I don't believe any costume maker, including Roger Patterson was trying to be that PC. ;)

the boob thing has been explained by the illustration in Roger's book that shows a bf with boobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Why make things more complex than they have to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Because Roger missed his calling as the first brain surgeon in space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Does anyone know if there is a larger stabilized version of the PGF than this ~> http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif ?? From what I understand the original film resolution to be; 216 pixels high seems tiny. Thx

2 days later - oops, I just realized that the Subject is only a fraction of the frame! :rolleyes: So, maybe that's all we get. Although, it would be interesting to see a new, best possible, stabilized version done today.

I still don't see how the legs and arms, etc. could possibly be fake. And, since nobody can, or will, re-create anything like the PGF Creature, that sort of rests the case for me... Who signed what or, who went where is usually personal stuff.

post-131-090739700 1286416229_thumb.gif

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

The above image is a very cool (imo) and sort of weird 'movie' if you click it. :B Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

"" Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax""

I know what men in bipedal ape suits look like.

Here is Hollywood's finest from 1976:

kingkong1976.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No kidding I was thinking about this this morning. I had the 1977 King Kong and that horrible sequel running through my head. I thought, "PGF looked better than that."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Great picture of the 1976 Kong.

Notice the size of the head in relation to the body. The reality of makeup and creature stuff is that when we start with a human inside, we cannot subtract any of the human features or anatomy to reshape the creature, we can only add and try to achieve a rearranged look with those additions. So to get a gorilla/ape like head, we have to add and the head becomes quite large. Patty's head is quite small and compact for the body mass, which pretty much challenges any suit maker to achieve. Even the best of the 70's would struggle with that challenge.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...