Jump to content
xspider1

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

ETA: Images for new page...

89614cb7b93cbb3db.jpg

89614cb7b93cd7940.jpg

Kit - Your image links don't seem to work. (Maybe that's because most people don't 'participate' at the jref?) When I found out that the primary definition of a skeptic is: –noun 1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual -

I wasn't really interested. If I have to take a default position then, in general, I'll take belief over doubt, any day. Maybe you could just post those images here.

1) Thank you for the feedback. I didn't realize the links were not viewable to non-members of the JREF forum. Many people here are members and only once before have I been told a link didn't work. I edited the post to show the images.

2) I accept your forthright admission of not being interested in being a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. There are many who share your disinterest. I think the prevalence of people of your mindset is why we have social constructs such as Bigfoot, alien abduction, Dogman, ghosts and other fortean/paranormal claims. As a skeptic, I deal with specific claims, such as the PGF showing a real Bigfoot. I question its validity and authenticity. As the images above show, I think even amateurs can make something like Patty. I don't find absurd looking breasts that look like they were made by a 60's cowboy and nothing ever seen in nature to be realistic, nor the diaper butt, nor the crazy subducting thigh, nor the shoulders that look like football pads, nor the head that looks like an old style football helmet. I see what can easily be a human.

I accept your wearing your position as a believer proudly. Being credulous is not desirable for me personally, because I don't like being duped by hoaxers and lies. I think many Bigfooters are happy to be hoaxed and duped by liars. It's all about the suspension of disbelief. It's all fun, just don't spoil the fun. It's like pro wrestling. Don't spoil the fun by telling me you're not actually beating the snot out of that guy and I'll chant and hoot and jump up and down for you; that type of thing. Some Bigfooters = pro wresting fans, I think. For example, I think any forum member that would actually even for a moment seriously consider that Indiefoot's avatar might show a real Bigfoot rather than an image of nothing but leaves and shadow, possibly manipulated for effect, possibly not, would qualify as being credulous and having a pro wrestling fan-like suspension of disbelief. If that offends you or anyone, please remember, it is only my opinion and I am allowed to think that way. I am allowed to be every bit as skeptical as those who are credulous. My disbelief is allowed to match belief. There were no signs or notices upon registration that said, "No skeptics allowed," however much certain discriminatory believers would like for it to be otherwise.

I think also many Bigfooters like me do not proudly claim belief by default, but unlike me still think Bigfoot is actually a real animal. As the No Bigfoot Days wear on through the years an years, many are coming around to my position and maybe even can continue loving Bigfoot as something humans made, not evolution and some ineptness on our part to have catalogued one of the biggest and most widely distributed mammals in North America and beyond. It is inevitable, no matter how many believers make the "Keep the faith, brother!" rally cry. Loads of people get sick of faith and turn to reason instead. I like reason more than faith and you proclaim the opposite. We have an understanding and I'm cool with it.

My position is that until Bigfoot is catalogued by science in the form of type specimen as we have been doing since Linnaeus, it is a social construct no different from other fortean/paranormal claims like Dogman, alien abduction, Mothman, ghosts, Nessie, crop circles, etc. Don't like the company? They're right there beside Bigfoot on the exact same shelf. We have evidence for all of these things being social constructs in the form of hoaxes, misidentifications, hallucinations, lies, and overactive imaginations.

Anywho, I said: "the professional and very expensive attempts over the decades have consistently fallen very short as well." By that, I meant attempts to create a Bigfoot hoax or movie, not necessarily a replication of Patty. Do you really think that a lot of money has not been spent over the years trying to make a realistic looking Bigfoot costume? And, if "Patty is not special" then why has the PGF been studied, debated and critiqued ad infinitum for 43 years?

Edit, as per your request:

Perhaps you can find a few attempts that were not 'exactly cheap' among the 1,100,000 results listed here ~> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bigfoot+movie :B

1) You agree that there has not at all been a lot of attempts to recreate Patty, specifically. This is good. Too many Bigfooters present it as otherwise, which I find to be either intellectually lackadaisical or dishonest, depending on the circumstances The amateur one I showed was pretty darn good, along with the professional one that had only a week to prep.

2) Since I have explained that Patty is neither realistic nor special to me, and the counter-assertion that she is is purely subjective, even amongst professionals, the argument has been nullified. Also, the PGF is special as an icon amongst a community of believers. I think Patty's appearance is not special in that it's not realistic and has been similarly made before and after the PGF.

3) Fake Bigfoot movie with more pronounced musculature than Patty...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlHXO3DFQZs

Fake Bigfoot movie with far more difficult movement for an actor to do...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIIgGtpcG94

Film from same time period with far more realistic apes than Patty...

Any arguments about head size or arm length will be considered by me to be credulous and without the capacity to think like a hoaxer.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Kit - Your image links don't seem to work. (Maybe that's because most people don't 'participate' at the jref?) When I found out that the primary definition of a skeptic is: –noun 1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual -

I wasn't really interested. If I have to take a default position then, in general, I'll take belief over doubt, any day. Maybe you could just post those images here.

xspider,

You'll note that when it comes to Patty the skeptics won't choose the closest and clearest images of Patty when they are looking for a suit comparison.

Like this:

patterson_bigfoot.jpg

Anywho, I said: "the professional and very expensive attempts over the decades have consistently fallen very short as well." By that, I meant attempts to create a Bigfoot hoax or movie, not necessarily a replication of Patty.

Yes I understood what you meant. You didn't restrict it to 'Patty'. You included bigfoot in general.

Do you really think that a lot of money has not been spent over the years trying to make a realistic looking Bigfoot costume?

Let's widen to it to include 'upright bipedal ape creature' as well.

We seriously CANNOT forget this from 1976:

8795_6639183146.jpg

And nobody should ever and I mean EVER try to equate the 2001 apemen to Patty. It's preposterous. Their big heads, spindly limbs, long shaggy hair, lack of bulk etc etc is nothing like Patty. They are poles apart.

ape.jpg

And, if "Patty is not special" then why has the PGF been studied, debated and critiqued ad infinitum for 43 years?

It was also the focus of a National Geographic Channel special earlier this year. The consensus came out supporting the probability of it being genuine.

http://www.bfro.net/news/american_paranormal.asp

Those who erroneously claim Patty is 'nothing special' must have been walking around in a vacuum these last 40 years.

If the Patty footage wasn't special then we wouldn't still be talking about it. After all, how much discussion and debate is there on the Ivan Marx footage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

xspider,

Here is video footage of Leroy Blevins in his funny 'Patty' suit. This suit was alluded to earlier in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqbfrfhC4Wg&feature=related

When you get the FULL facts things appear much clearer don't they? There is some dishonesty going on in this thread methinks. ;)

The hilarity begins on 23 seconds in this footage. :lol:

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

xspider,

You'll note that when it comes to Patty the skeptics won't choose the closest and clearest images of Patty when they are looking for a suit comparison.

Like this:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/799047/patterson_bigfoot.jpg

Yeah, I think that looks just as ridiculous. Just showed it to my Japanese friend and they said in Japanese, "Totally human. The shoulders look like pads." If only I was making that up, I wouldn't have found that so funny. I seek fake absurd boobs, football shoulder pads, an old time football helmet, a padding stuffed butt to fill it out and not be too baggy. I see very close to the Robot Monster in my comparison above. You see a Bigfoot. As a believer, such things are wont to happen. Bill Munns sees a real creature. Chris Walas sees a amateurish hoax. See how that works? I think any quibbling or saying, "Nuh-uh! Bill studied it more!" is just the quibbling of a believer attached to the idea the film is real beyond reason. I am allowed to think so. Bill Munns thought it was real in 2001 well before he had a twelve part BFF v.1 contemplation of it, so any counter-argument is dead in the water before it starts.

Those who erroneously claim Patty is 'nothing special' must have been walking around in a vacuum these last 40 years.

And ironically the opposition thinks the same of those who think Patty is some wonderous, special thing. See how that works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

xspider,

Here is video footage of Leroy Blevins in his funny 'Patty' suit. This suit was alluded to earlier in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqbfrfhC4Wg&feature=related

When you get the FULL facts things appear much clearer don't they? There is some dishonesty going on in this thread methinks. ;)

The hilarity begins on 23 seconds in this footage. :lol:

Except Patty in motion looks ridiculous to many. Taking that opinion away from people or denying them the right to have it is totally, totally wrong, IMO. I think it's the unfair actions of unrealistic believers. I am allowed to think so. Also, you are showing the earlier phases of an ongoing work. Why not attack Leroy Blevins crazy pareidolia weirdness? He made something that looked just like Patty. Showing an earlier phase of work to debase the latter is intellectually dishonest, IMO. I am allowed to think so. See how that works. Discounting things that look like Patty is unfair, I think. I think Patty looks just as ridiculous moving as Chris Walas does, even though I do not have his expertise. The whole thing is subjective, and those who pretend it's not are twisting the views of so many, many people to their own ideas. I think it's unfair and intellectually dishonest. See how are arguments can be so different, yet so valid to each of us? That is the absolute essence of subjectivity. See how that works?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

xspider,

Want to make a guess which lasts longer?

The PGF or Kitakaze's desperate and failed attemps to bust it?

Mind you, maybe he's still going to be on bigfoot message boards claiming "I'm gonna prove it's a hoax" even when he's 90. :lol:

I already gave a link to a National Geographic Channel t.v special from this year which supports the likelyhood of the PGF being authentic.

Doesn't sound to me like the PGF is being busted by anyone.

*Edit. Another You Tube clip from BLevins self proclaiming he's busted the 'hoax'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHfu5oJrloY&feature=related

And yes that is the same completed suit that was shown earlier in the stills as far as I can work out. It's not a work-in-progress.

PS) Don't you just love the way Blevins locks his knees when he walks? Just like Bob H.....and UNLIKE Patty.:lol:

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PastorTim

Except Patty in motion looks ridiculous to many. Taking that opinion away from people or denying them the right to have it is totally, totally wrong, IMO. I think it's the unfair actions of unrealistic believers. I am allowed to think so. Also, you are showing the earlier phases of an ongoing work. Why not attack Leroy Blevins crazy pareidolia weirdness? He made something that looked just like Patty. Showing an earlier phase of work to debase the latter is intellectually dishonest, IMO. I am allowed to think so. See how that works. Discounting things that look like Patty is unfair, I think. I think Patty looks just as ridiculous moving as Chris Walas does, even though I do not have his expertise. The whole thing is subjective, and those who pretend it's not are twisting the views of so many, many people to their own ideas. I think it's unfair and intellectually dishonest. See how are arguments can be so different, yet so valid to each of us? That is the absolute essence of subjectivity. See how that works?

Except for the fact that this video and Patty do not look alike. They do not move the same way and do not have the same shape either. This is not a matter of opinion or observation. It is a matter of fact. Just Open your eyes and look. Don't just take a position to be controversial. I am not claiming that Patty is a real BF. I am claiming that if you cannot see the vast differences between two videos than you are choosing just to argue for the sake of arguing. What is intellectually dishonest is trying to claim that the latter video looks just like Patty. And I'm not even a homer who is saying Patty is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RayG
You'll note that when it comes to Patty the skeptics won't choose the closest and clearest images of Patty when they are looking for a suit comparison.

The best comparison would be between a live subject, or specimen, and the photo.

That cibachrome copy even added a detail that was non-existent in the original film frame -- curled fingers on the right hand. And what's up with the lower right leg appearing to have a muscle on the side of the leg? It looks almost something like...

th_200px-Rubber_hip_boots.jpg?t=1287144850

RayG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If that offends you or anyone, please remember, it is only my opinion and I am allowed to think that way. I am allowed to be every bit as skeptical as those who are credulous. My disbelief is allowed to match belief. There were no signs or notices upon registration that said, "No skeptics allowed," however much certain discriminatory believers would like for it to be otherwise.

Very interesting that you say, "If that offends you or anyone...", it's almost the admission of guilt. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

The hilarity begins on 23 seconds in this footage. :lol:

I don’t know how much time and money Leroy Blevins spent on that costume but, it’s priceless! Funny, when I watch the PGF, I never crack up laughing. (I won’t link it here cuz it has some cuss words and ‘trippy mushrooms’ but; the Tenacious D Bigfoot video is also hilarious! That one is made to be funny though- big difference.)

…it is a social construct no different from other fortean/paranormal claims like Dogman, alien abduction, Mothman, ghosts, Nessie, crop circles, etc.

That sort of sounds (to me) like you are saying that everything unknown to mainstream science is a social construct. Many just can’t accept, or don’t realize that there are many times more things unknown to science than there are known things.

In the first video you posted, the costume is partially visible for about 2 seconds. In the second video, the costume fills many times more of the frame than the Creature in the PGF but it is made to appear even less clear. The third example is no comparison at all, imo. Really, if you or anyone else shows footage of a man-made creature that obviously compares in realism to the creature in the PGF, I think that even most ‘credulous’ people would admit it. (That hasn't happened yet.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

xspider,

Want to make a guess which lasts longer?

The PGF or Kitakaze's desperate and failed attemps to bust it?

Mind you, maybe he's still going to be on bigfoot message boards claiming "I'm gonna prove it's a hoax" even when he's 90.

If I have the good fortune to make it to 90, it will be in the year 2067. Will that have been enough No Bigfoot Days, or will there still be people on the Internet talking about Bigfoot being a real animal? Will there still be Bigfooters trying to dictate how other people think?

And yes that is the same completed suit that was shown earlier in the stills as far as I can work out. It's not a work-in-progress.

As far as you can work out? Details of the working out, please. I am very interested to hear this.

PS) Don't you just love the way Blevins locks his knees when he walks? Just like Bob H.....and UNLIKE Patty.:lol:

1)

89614cb7b93cd7940.jpg

2) *goes to check mail without locking knees*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Very interesting that you say, "If that offends you or anyone...", it's almost the admission of guilt. :P

Actually, no it's not. It's an acknowledgement that certain Bigfooters get offended easily. I would ask you if you think Indiefoot's avatar is actually a Bigfoot, but it's OT, so I won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I don’t know how much time and money Leroy Blevins spent on that costume but, it’s priceless! Funny, when I watch the PGF, I never crack up laughing. (I won’t link it here cuz it has some cuss words and ‘trippy mushrooms’ but; the Tenacious D Bigfoot video is also hilarious! That one is made to be funny though- big difference.)

1) My Japanese friend last night cracked up laughing look at the PGF. Not just stills, but the moving film. They thought it looked like an obvious suit and that it was ridiculous. Throngs of people feel that way. Would you try and dictate how they think with your own beliefs, and if so, who are you to do that?

2) These don't look similar?

89614cb7b93cbb3db.jpg

3) Wouldn't it be great if you could have a clear video of Patty shot nice and close? I think she would look even more ridiculous. Are you allowed to take away the perspective of those like Chris Walas who see an amateurish hoax? Do you think you can wrench away the essence of subjectivity?

That sort of sounds (to me) like you are saying that everything unknown to mainstream science is a social construct. Many just can’t accept, or don’t realize that there are many times more things unknown to science than there are known things.

It sounds to me like I am saying Dogman, alien abduction, Mothman, ghosts, Nessie, crop circles, etc. are social constructs. Which one of those do you think is not a social construct?

I think there are many wonderful real mysteries...

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090507-top10-greatest-mysteries-1.html

Alien anal probes and Dogman are not among them for me. Maybe for you, but not for me.

In the first video you posted, the costume is partially visible for about 2 seconds. In the second video, the costume fills many times more of the frame than the Creature in the PGF but it is made to appear even less clear. The third example is no comparison at all, imo. Really, if you or anyone else shows footage of a man-made creature that obviously compares in realism to the creature in the PGF, I think that even most ‘credulous’ people would admit it. (That hasn't happened yet.)

Wait, are you forcing me to think the PGF is realistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PastorTim

Again, can we please just be intellectually honest for just one moment? Just because you flash two still pics next to each other from two different videos that do not look like each other means nothing. The fluid movement of the black BF is nothing like the movement of "Patty". To claim that they are similar is not truthful. You have take two pics away from their context and attempted to define them as looking the same. Hit the play button and they are vastly different. You don't have a point. You are just arguing for the sake of it.

Nobody is is forcing you to believe PGF is a real bf. They are asking you to be honest that the videos you are trying to compare to Patty don't look like Patty. Instead you want to pull a still pic out of context and define it as looking like something it isn't. That is cheap propaganda and nothing but a straw man argument.

Edited by PastorTim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Kit – you have posted your ‘gobbledy gook’ picture 3 times here in rapid succession so; could you please give that a rest?

1) My Japanese friend last night cracked up laughing look at the PGF.

Well, anyone who has never seen the PGF before would certainly be the definitive authority.

Would you try and dictate how they think with your own beliefs, and if so, who are you to do that?

Do what? That was completely un-called for. I gave you more credit than to say something like that. If you are trying to get this thread shut down, like yours was then, I'm betting cooler heads will prevail. :B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...