Jump to content
xspider1

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

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.

Do you realize that on the BFF v.1 there were multiple threads on the Harley Hoffman video where numerous Bigfooters said the video looked very much like Patty?

That's honesty for you. Would you take those Bigfooters opinions away because they don't suit your argument? I think if anyone would do that, it would be very unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

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

Any comment on it? Like, for example, I think Robot Monster with a Patty head looks remarkably similar to Patty. I am not the only one. Would you take the opinions of those of us who think so away from us?

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

It's a wonderful demonstration of the subjectivity of the PGF - totally fresh eyes to the PGF of a person where Bigfoot hardly even registers in their culture. WHy are you undermining that person's perspective? Do they need to watch the film 300 times before they can have an opinion? Chris Walas is a great authority and he thinks the film is an amateurish hoax. Would you take away his opinion, too? Who are these Bigfoot believer people trying to take away the opinions of those who don't share their beliefs? Someone who has never seen the film before and on their first viewing thinks it's totally a man in a suit they take away. An Oscar-winning FX genius studies the film in depth and the more and more they do, they see an amateurish hoax and I think they would take that away, too. I think it's rather arrogant to undermine the totally valid opinions of so many people and not acknowledge the simple fact that the PGF is a subjective thing. I am allowed to think so. Some people see a real Bigfoot. Many others see a silly suit. Bill Munns sees a real creature, Chris Walas does not. Why try and take that away from people? Would that be this "denialism" we here believers talk about? 100% yes, I think. I think when you try and invalidate a great many opinions that don't concur with yours, you are taking them away from people.

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

Why is it uncalled for? My head is quite cool. I don't want this thread shut down. I would honestly like to know why some PGF believers undermine the opinions of so many people who do not see what they see. You do that for a person who has only seen the film once. How about for a pro who has seen it countless times?

The PGF is subjective. If it is not, I welcome the argument for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Let's all be friends or at least try to be nice, ok? :)

2) These don't look similar?

post-131-097132600 1287179828_thumb.jpg

In a word, no, those don't look similar. If those images look similar to you then that's fine by me. I'm not here to start trouble, toss accusations or to launch continuous Soliloquies.

My honest opinion of the two pics side-by-side above is that the following things look much more real in the image on the right: the foot, the legs, the hands, the arms, the gluteus', the back, the shoulders, the neck and the head.

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PastorTim

Do you realize that on the BFF v.1 there were multiple threads on the Harley Hoffman video where numerous Bigfooters said the video looked very much like Patty?

That's honesty for you. Would you take those Bigfooters opinions away because they don't suit your argument? I think if anyone would do that, it would be very unfair.

It is very convenient to cite a source that does not exist, therefore I have no idea whether you are honest or not. That is just another straw man argument. I do know that there are a few posters on this board that are mentally handicapped. They accept every video posted a legit and looking like Patty. For all I know you are citing those same people as "Bigfooters opinions." They are wonderful people and God bless them, but this seems to be your line of reasoning. A straw man.

You have still failed again to even address the points I have made. You, not them or any other Bigfooter, pull pics out of context to distort evidence into your own opinion. This is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty. It makes no difference if the still images you provide has similar attributes or not. Hit play and they are not similar like you are trying to argue.

I am not even saying that the PGF is real, but I am not going to manipulate evidence to make my theory stronger or myself look intelligent on a forum for no reason except self gratification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It is very convenient to cite a source that does not exist, therefore I have no idea whether you are honest or not. That is just another straw man argument. I do know that there are a few posters on this board that are mentally handicapped. They accept every video posted a legit and looking like Patty. For all I know you are citing those same people as "Bigfooters opinions." They are wonderful people and God bless them, but this seems to be your line of reasoning. A straw man.

No, the people I am referring to who thought the Harley Hoffman video looked like Patty were not mentally handicapped. I find it bizarre that rather than accept that some people who are at full capacity think differently than you do, you go to mental disability. Old school BFF'ers will know what I am talking about. I think it looks similar and I am not at all mentally handicapped. As I recall, JayleeD was another. It's not a straw man argument at all. It seems you don't understand what a straw man argument is.

You have still failed again to even address the points I have made. You, not them or any other Bigfooter, pull pics out of context to distort evidence into your own opinion. This is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty. It makes no difference if the still images you provide has similar attributes or not. Hit play and they are not similar like you are trying to argue.

How is it out of context to show things that look like Patty? Patty looks ridiculous and very unreal to me when moving. Robot Monster looks very similar. You see muscles rippling? I see diaper butt, lumps, tummy rug rocks, crazy subducting thigh, etc. I am allowed to think so.

I am not even saying that the PGF is real, but I am not going to manipulate evidence to make my theory stronger or myself look intelligent on a forum for no reason except self gratification.

Question: How was Leroy Blevins able to create something that looks so much like Patty from behind? That's a regular Joe with no film creature FX experience.

Question: Why does Robot Monster look so much like Patty?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Nobody is taking anyone's opinion away from them, Kit. That isn't even possible. We are just "stating our opinion". Can you post a link to the Robot Monster w/ Patty Head? That sounds cool. :rolleyes:

</trying to make things Happy before this gets squashed> for the moment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Let's all be friends or at least try to be nice, ok? :)

post-131-097132600 1287179828_thumb.jpg

In a word, no, those don't look similar. If those images look similar to you then that's fine by me. I'm not here to start trouble, toss accusations or to launch continuous Soliloquies.

My honest opinion of the two pics side-by-side above is that the following things look much more real in the image on the right:

the foot, the legs, the hands, the arms, the gluteus', the back, the shoulders, the neck and the head.

You are welcome to your opinion. I don't share it. Vortigern99 at the JREF, who used to be a Bigfoot and PGF proponent before becoming a skeptic, shares my opinion that these images are remarkably similar. He and I weren't the only ones. On Patty I see silly slipper looking feet, a bonkers subducting thigh, a lumpy diaper butt, crazy tummy rug rocks that look like a 60's cowboy thought of them, arms that have funky lumps, shoulders that look like football pads, and a head that looks like an oldtime football helmet.

Can we agree that the PGF is totally subjective? I think that would make for a great understanding between believer and skeptic.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Nobody is taking anyone's opinion away from them, Kit. That isn't even possible. We are just "stating our opinion". Can you post a link to the Robot Monster w/ Patty Head? That sounds cool. :rolleyes:

But you just wrote...

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

I would rather not post it a 4th time. Can you offer an opinion on it? I feel like I am having trouble getting one.

</trying to make things Happy before this gets squashed> for the moment

Gets squashed? Why would it? Are you upset? I'm not upset. Are there rules being broken? I don't see it, but maybe I am wrong. I'm completely cool with this debate. Is there someone in here who is upset? Are we really that hypersensitive? I don't feel that way. My argument is simple: The PGF is subjective. If anyone argues that it is not subjective, they invalidate and thereby take away the opinions of those who don't think as they do, which I feel is unfair. This is a reasonable line of thinking, no?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You are welcome to your opinion. I don't share it. Vortigern99 at the JREF, who used to be a Bigfoot and PGF proponent before becoming a skeptic, shares my opinion that these images are remarkably similar. He and I weren't the only ones. On Patty I see silly slipper looking feet, a bonkers subducting thigh, a lumpy diaper butt, crazy tummy rug rocks that look like a 60's cowboy thought of them, arms that have funky lumps, shoulders that look like football pads, and a head that looks like an oldtime football helmet.

Can we agree that the PGF is totally subjective? I think that would make for a great understanding between believer and skeptic.

Hi Kit

On this, I disagree. I'm not convinced that the PGF shows a bigfoot, but I certainly think the suit (if a suit) was masterfully done. How could we possibly be debating over this 40+ years later otherwise? I think the Blevins suit was more a joke than anything. Still nothing compares, sorry, JMHO. I think you are biased up the ying-yang in this regard and it has to affect your judgement when you know it's a fake. I wouldn't still be interested in this film if was as obvious a fake as you seem to think it is.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Hi Kit

On this, I disagree. I'm not convinced that the PGF shows a bigfoot, but I certainly think the suit (if a suit) was masterfully done. How could we possibly be debating over this 40+ years later otherwise? I think the Blevins suit was more a joke than anything. Still nothing compares, sorry, JMHO. I think you are biased up the ying-yang in this regard and it has to affect your judgement when you know it's a fake. I wouldn't still be interested in this film if was as obvious a fake as you seem to think it is.

Good questions, Giganto, and I'm glad you're in the discussion. Victoria represent! :lol:

1) How could we possibly be debating this 40+ years later? One word...

Subjectivity. That is what is special about the PGF. You can see masterfully done, and Bill Munns can see masterfully done, if a hoax, but actually not be able to see a hoax at all, and yet I can see an amateurish hoax, and more so than myself, even an Oscar winning FX master, Chris Walas, can take a real good look at the film and see an amateurish hoax.

The BFF is suffering now from two things, I think...

1) The amnesty, which is non sequitur to this discussion.

2) The archive being gone, which is very sequitur. We seriously have people thinking that no one could seriously consider the Harley Hoffman video to look similar to Patty, when the old BFF had threads with loads of Bigfooters who did feel that way and were not mentally handicapped. GF, you're pretty old school. Do you remember those threads? And it is called intellectual dishonesty to bring that into the discussion, which I think is simply mistaken.

The PGF is such that with the distance and the lighting it becomes very subjective as to what is seen. This forum is full of people that see muscles and rippling and gluts and bulges an so on. A great many others see absurd rugg rocks for boobs, a diaper butt, silly slippers - that is the essence of subjectivity.

The PGF is at the center of a fringe culture of belief. Dogman has its video and Bigfoot has its film. UFO people have their stuff, and ghost buffs, too. It's a paranormal/fortean belief culture thing, IMO. Chupacabra - check. Lake monsters - check. That is what the CFZ is all about. Every group has to have their icon and rally point. That's why I address specific claims now rather than wasting time trying to argue Bigfoot in general.

Let me give you a run down of a typical Japanese person seeing the PGF for the first time...

he? nani sore? ningen ja nai no?

Hey, what's that? It's a human, right?

omoshiroi yo ne. istu totta no?

That's neat. When was the film taken?

1967? furui desu yo ne. tonikaku Biggufutto no karada wa doko? hone to ka sou iu koto...

1967? That's pretty old. So anyway, where's Bigfoot's body? Like, the bones or something like that.

...

And that Japanese person would be completely justified. Every Japanese person I have met who reacted essentially like that and looked at me sideways when I said some people claim you can see muscles moving was completely valid in having their opinon and saying, "That's nice. Where's the body?"

I think what you often get from Bigfoot-is-a-real-animal Bigfooters is a barrage of excuses that Bigfooters like me who believe Bigfoot is a cool myth, or the paranormal Bigfoot guys, simply don't need to deal with. Bigfoot-is-a-real-animal Bigfooters have it rough, because while people are out there continuing to see Dogman, grey aliens, etc, they have to explain how we are in 2010 and we still don't have a body for what would be one of the largest and most widely distributed animals in North America and beyond. Well, they're really rare. Really? The Bigfoot guru Grover krantz never thought so. Bigfoot Times guy Daniel Perez has spoken of 100,000's of Bigfoot across NA. Are the Bigfoot-is-a-rare-real-animal Bigfooters going to throw Krantz and Perez under the bus and claim better knowledge than they have/had?

That's the problem with Bigfootery. There's no consistency. It works and moves and fluctuates exactly like a social construct, rather than a real animal. Real animals turn up dead, and I think any talk of burying their dead and acidic soils is just hooey. Bigfoot apparently lives clear across North America and it can't keep deeking us out and controlling all of its circumstances for hundreds of years while modern industrial nations get built up around it. If we can have solid proof for one wolverine in California, we can have the same for a bunch of giants monkeys living in New York, Iowa, Texas, Florida, etc.

Bigfooters can not even agree what Bigfoot is, what it looks like, nor where it lives. I think that's exactly what happens when you have something that we made up, and was never real. I think as long as the No Bigfoot Days continue, and Bob Gimlin is idolized and sticks to one of his many stories, and no suit is ever found, the PGF will keep on truckin' as the icon for a fringe belief culture. I aim to end the controversy with final proof, no matter how arrogant or audacious anyone thinks it is.

GF, you know that you especially are always welcome to meet me personally and have your socks blown clear off. Thanks for chiming in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

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

Ray sorry to disappoint you but those waders look nothing like the PGF subject. I'll let Kit play on the intellectually dishonest rap but I'll coin a new phrase and call it visually dishonest and that's what you're being with those waders and trying to relate it the appearance to the PGF subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Good questions, Giganto, and I'm glad you're in the discussion. Victoria represent! :lol:

1) How could we possibly be debating this 40+ years later? One word...

Subjectivity. That is what is special about the PGF. You can see masterfully done, and Bill Munns can see masterfully done, if a hoax, but actually not be able to see a hoax at all, and yet I can see an amateurish hoax, and more so than myself, even an Oscar winning FX master, Chris Walas, can take a real good look at the film and see an amateurish hoax.

The BFF is suffering now from two things, I think...

1) The amnesty, which is non sequitur to this discussion.

2) The archive being gone, which is very sequitur. We seriously have people thinking that no one could seriously consider the Harley Hoffman video to look similar to Patty, when the old BFF had threads with loads of Bigfooters who did feel that way and were not mentally handicapped. GF, you're pretty old school. Do you remember those threads? And it is called intellectual dishonesty to bring that into the discussion, which I think is simply mistaken.

The PGF is such that with the distance and the lighting it becomes very subjective as to what is seen. This forum is full of people that see muscles and rippling and gluts and bulges an so on. A great many others see absurd rugg rocks for boobs, a diaper butt, silly slippers - that is the essence of subjectivity.

The PGF is at the center of a fringe culture of belief. Dogman has its video and Bigfoot has its film. UFO people have their stuff, and ghost buffs, too. It's a paranormal/fortean belief culture thing, IMO. Chupacabra - check. Lake monsters - check. That is what the CFZ is all about. Every group has to have their icon and rally point. That's why I address specific claims now rather than wasting time trying to argue Bigfoot in general.

Let me give you a run down of a typical Japanese person seeing the PGF for the first time...

he? nani sore? ningen ja nai no?

Hey, what's that? It's a human, right?

omoshiroi yo ne. istu totta no?

That's neat. When was the film taken?

1967? furui desu yo ne. tonikaku Biggufutto no karada wa doko? hone to ka sou iu koto...

1967? That's pretty old. So anyway, where's Bigfoot's body? Like, the bones or something like that.

...

And that Japanese person would be completely justified. Every Japanese person I have met who reacted essentially like that and looked at me sideways when I said some people claim you can see muscles moving was completely valid in having their opinon and saying, "That's nice. Where's the body?"

I think what you often get from Bigfoot-is-a-real-animal Bigfooters is a barrage of excuses that Bigfooters like me who believe Bigfoot is a cool myth, or the paranormal Bigfoot guys, simply don't need to deal with. Bigfoot-is-a-real-animal Bigfooters have it rough, because while people are out there continuing to see Dogman, grey aliens, etc, they have to explain how we are in 2010 and we still don't have a body for what would be one of the largest and most widely distributed animals in North America and beyond. Well, they're really rare. Really? The Bigfoot guru Grover krantz never thought so. Bigfoot Times guy Daniel Perez has spoken of 100,000's of Bigfoot across NA. Are the Bigfoot-is-a-rare-real-animal Bigfooters going to throw Krantz and Perez under the bus and claim better knowledge than they have/had?

That's the problem with Bigfootery. There's no consistency. It works and moves and fluctuates exactly like a social construct, rather than a real animal. Real animals turn up dead, and I think any talk of burying their dead and acidic soils is just hooey. Bigfoot apparently lives clear across North America and it can't keep deeking us out and controlling all of its circumstances for hundreds of years while modern industrial nations get built up around it. If we can have solid proof for one wolverine in California, we can have the same for a bunch of giants monkeys living in New York, Iowa, Texas, Florida, etc.

Bigfooters can not even agree what Bigfoot is, what it looks like, nor where it lives. I think that's exactly what happens when you have something that we made up, and was never real. I think as long as the No Bigfoot Days continue, and Bob Gimlin is idolized and sticks to one of his many stories, and no suit is ever found, the PGF will keep on truckin' as the icon for a fringe belief culture. I aim to end the controversy with final proof, no matter how arrogant or audacious anyone thinks it is.

GF, you know that you especially are always welcome to meet me personally and have your socks blown clear off. Thanks for chiming in.

Kit do Japanese people hold some sort of enhanced sense of perception that would made the observations of a Japanese person more credible than anybody else's? If so can you link us to such a proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Kit do Japanese people hold some sort of enhanced sense of perception that would made the observations of a Japanese person more credible than anybody else's? If so can you link us to such a proof?

Japanese hold no candle to my Northern Slobovian friends that are dazzled and astounded by the realism and biologic grace they witness in the PGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit do Japanese people hold some sort of enhanced sense of perception that would made the observations of a Japanese person more credible than anybody else's? If so can you link us to such a proof?

Not at all. (BTW, is it really necessary to quote the thing for a two sentence response?)

I use Japanese people as an example of a culture that hardly notices the Bigfoot subculture. Check out Wikipedia's Japanese page on Bigfoot...

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%93%E3%83%83%E3%82%B0%E3%83%95%E3%83%83%E3%83%88

It's hardly even a blurb. Bigfoot is classified by Japanese as a UMA (unidentified moving animal) which is a cheeky nod to UFO culture. Why would I make an absurd argument that Japanese have finer perception than the cultural soup of North Americans? It is totally non sequitur to my argument that the PGF is subjective. Would you argue that it is not? I would welcome that argument and enjoy debating against the notion.

Bill Munns sees a real creature. Chris Walas sees an amateurish hoax. Both have looked in depth at the film. It is utterly subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RayG

Crow, not trying to say the entire leg looks like the waders, only that the very lower portion of Patty's leg looks unnatural (to me anyway), like the muscle is flexing on the side of the leg, and the quickest pic I could find with anything even resembling that unnatural look was a pic of those waders.

I assure you my intent was not to extend the comparison to the entire leg.

This is the portion I'm talking about:

sidelegcompare.jpg

Nothing visually dishonest about it.

RayG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...