Jump to content
xspider1

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax

Recommended Posts

Guest Kerchak

I better get in quick before somebody claims Rick Baker's Schlock (1973) is just like Patty. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Kerchak - that 1973 "Schlock" appears to have hair on it or something so, 'subjectively', you must admit that it looks exactly like Patty! : p

2) These don't look similar?

post-131-091114900 1287214715_thumb.jpg

I'm trying to imagine how that comparison will fit into a documentary that shatters the Bigfoot belief system to it's core and; I don't see that happening.

Those do not look similar, Kit, and neither do these:

post-131-035119900 1287215699_thumb.jpg

Actually, your collage reminds me of an old Sesame Street jingle:

One of these things just isn't the same now

One of these thinks just doesn't belong

Can you tell which thing is not like the others

By the time I finish my song?

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Kerchak - that 1973 "Schlock" appears to have hair on it or something so, 'subjectively', you must admit that it looks exactly like Patty! : p

:lol:

Of course. How can I be so blind as to not see the close resemblance hehe.

No, Kit those do not look similar and neither do these:

post-131-035119900 1287215699_thumb.jpg

No they don't.

Seriously, is this the level we are at? Having to point out the blindingly obvious, that Robot Monster doesn't look like Patty? Methinks somebody is being intentionally obstructive and dishonest in this here debate. ;)

Actually, your collage reminds me of an old Sesame Street jingle:

One of these things just isn't the same now

One of these thinks just doesn't belong

Can you tell which thing is not like the others

By the time I finish my song?

Speaking of Sesame Street his collage examples look more like Big Bird than Bigfoot. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

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.

Thank you PastorTim.

He knew full well the moving footage was there in existence but did he chose to actually show that footage of Blevins? No, instead he decided to choose a less clear still of Blevins vs a less clear still of Patty. That is being dishonest and is 'playing a game'.

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.

Again, excellent appraisal of the truth of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Imagine laughing at the PGF one minute and then taking a 'serious, subjective' look at the Big Bird Foots in those videos. That is so funny! Thanks, :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I better get in quick before somebody claims Rick Baker's Schlock (1973) is just like Patty. :lol:

I don't think Schlock looks very much like Patty. I love Schlock and think it's a wonderful pretend movie only slightly more real than See You Next Wednesday. John Landis and Rick Baker would go on to make the wonderful, yet sad poke at the absurdities in British society in the Oscar-winning An American Werewolf in London.

You can see how gifted Rick Baker is by the amount of expression conveyed in his makeup work in Schlock...

The hair on both Patty and the apeman in Schlock look messed up in their own peculiar ways, but I would say the head of Baker's creature looked much more real than Patty. Patty's body appears fake to me in a way different from Baker's apeman, particularly in the way that I think Patty's padding givers away the man in the suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Not to be overlooked is the absolutely wonderful favourite of mine, Manbeast! Myth or Monster...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp-bD_Kjor8

The Bigfoot makeup and effects are fantastic, I think, and far more realistic than Patty with her her lumps and wonky bumps. If I saw one of the Bigfoots from this in the woods, I would be far more inclined to think I was seeing a real Bigfoot than if I were to see Patty. I would have a far better chance of being scared, too. If I saw Patty, I would be more inclined to give her a gym pass and some Nair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
post-131-091114900 1287214715_thumb.jpg

I'm trying to imagine how that comparison will fit into a documentary that shatters the Bigfoot belief system to it's core and; I don't see that happening.

Those do not look similar, Kit,

Nothing done by Blevins will be featured in my film. I think you forgot a qualifier with your statement, such as "I think." Those may not look similar to you, but they look extremely similar to me, and others beside me as well. I think to deny that we have this opinion and that it is honest and valid is unfair. I think such a things would be the essence of the "denialism" we sometimes hear about. In that shot Blevins comes very close to Patty for me, as does the other shot of Robot Monster. The similarity disappears when the figures are seen from a variety of abgles and movements. I think all of them, Patty included, look quite fake when seen in movement, but in their own ways. Patty is only ever seen from two angles at a far and farther distance. I think her fake attributes would only be more apparent at a closer distance and with better image quality.

I think this commercial that I love is more realistic than Patty...

And again, I think the fake physique and hair is done better in the Harley Hoffman video...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBFRPKY

Maybe this will make a seperate topic but since it was brought up: The main telling thing with Harley H's video for me that's simple to see is that the shoulders aren't right. A good effort with cleverly planned shots, but no cookie. And that fits in with the topic, in comparison with other videos, the PG film blows them all away. So much so almost 43 years later everyone is still debating it. Almost 43 years, and the more it's investigated with today's new technology, the more it leans toward being a real creature on film. And I think it always will. You can listen to claims made by people who change or mix up their story every time their story needs some adjustment. It's not against the law to believe someone by choice. Heck I was in the Air Force with a guy that claimed he was Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise, that's fine I told him, you be Capt Kirk all you wanna be, just be him over there somewhere. Did some people believe he was actually Capt Kirk? I dunno, some people believe Bob H. was Patty........ Chris B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Maybe this will make a seperate topic but since it was brought up: The main telling thing with Harley H's video for me that's simple to see is that the shoulders aren't right.

I think the shoulders aren't right (Patty on the left)...

89614cbac102f1c11.jpg

I think I can clearly see football-type shoulder pads in a Patty suit. I think it is clear also in the sternum area that to me projects unnaturally. The breasts are all wrong, as is the buttocks. I think I can clearly see suit wrinkles on the upper thigh similar to the suit wrinkle apparent on CC Bob's mid arm in the shot next to Patty on the left.

A good effort with cleverly planned shots, but no cookie.

Numerous Bigfooters have have claimed that the HH video subject is similar to Patty. Do you see any similarities between the two subjects?

And that fits in with the topic, in comparison with other videos, the PG film blows them all away. So much so almost 43 years later everyone is still debating it. Almost 43 years, and the more it's investigated with today's new technology, the more it leans toward being a real creature on film. And I think it always will. You can listen to claims made by people who change or mix up their story every time their story needs some adjustment. It's not against the law to believe someone by choice.

If Patty is realistic, why do so many informed people think she is very unrealistic? I think the fact the film is still debated has nothing to do with definitive realism. I feel the fact the film is still debated is due primarily to two things...

1) Subjectivity of the film and its subject.

2) Lack of determining evidence. Where is the original film? Why can't we examine it? Where is the plaster pour footage? Where is the stomp test footage? The guy who allegedly filmed it is deceased. How do we know he actually even filmed it? Why do Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin contradict themselves so massively? How could that film have been developed in the timeframe suggested by Patterson. Why do Patterson and Gimlin's timeline differ so greatly?

Why will neither Patricia Patterson nor Bob Gimlin participate in any critical examination featuring the only man on Earth ever to claim being in the suit who was as a fact involved in Roger's film and was actually friends with Bob Gimlin?

These are all completely valid questions that we have never been given a definitive answer on. Thus within the culture of a fringe belief such as Bigfoot, without definitive answers the debate can go on endlessly. It is 2010 and I think the best evidence Bigfootery has is this film. If you think it is the many reports of Bigfoot, I will refer you to many reports of ghosts, Reptoids, Grey aliens, Dogman. If you say it is the tracks, I will refer you to crop circles. The PGF really being a female Bigfoot in an area that was being used by a hoaxer is a specific claim that I think with the right research, investigation, and findings can be proven to be a hoax. I aim to do this or find the film to be authentic in its claim. I am at the point now where I am quite certain that the film is a hoax and that it would take some lightning bolt out of the blue revelation to make me think otherwise.

Heck I was in the Air Force with a guy that claimed he was Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise, that's fine I told him, you be Capt Kirk all you wanna be, just be him over there somewhere. Did some people believe he was actually Capt Kirk? I dunno, some people believe Bob H. was Patty........ Chris B.

You were in the armed forces with a delusional individual that you clearly thought was in fact delusional? What did you tell your superior officers when you reported the person. You did of course report a delusional person in your branch of the armed forces, I would assume.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBFRPKY

Kitakaze, The shoulders are too low on Harley's "creature" film. The shoulders on Patty are correct. I don't know how one bulks up a costume shoulder wise but like everyone in the USA that's ever been to high school, I've seen football shoulder pads too. So, if Patty's a fake, hats off to Roger P. for getting it right. As far as similarities of Patty and Harley's "creature", they're both hairy and bulky but I think only Patty was the real creature.

Regardless whether you believe the PG film to be real or a hoax, if you want to see what one of these creatures really looks like, there you have it with Patty.

As to why the film has stuck around so long, speculation abounds, but it's not the only footage ever shot claimed to be one of these creatures. So it's not just about the subject. I'll bet it's more on the order of it's never been proven a hoax. Maybe someday it will be? Maybe not. Science progresses and we see more in the video as it does.

As far as why do alot of people reject Patty and consider her unrealistic, I think it's largely because they don't want to believe these things are out there. And since they've obviously never seen one, they reject any and all evidence of these creatures immediately. I don't blame them a bit. I was skeptical before too but not to the point of dismissing everything. People choose what to believe. I'm good with that.

As for me when it comes to the evidence on the P/G film, I don't care who said what to who, if someone was being sued, or even is one was a short timer due to cancer, or someone's cousin's brother-in-law's sister said they know somebody that was Patty. I don't care if Gimlin's wife was to now come forward and claim she was actually Patty on the creek bottom that day.....None of that proves or disproves the subject shown in the P/G video and to me it will always be all about the video.

As far as the delusional AF guy, don't worry, he reported himself in order to be discharged, it's likely he didn't really think he was Capt Kirk, and was putting on an act, but I told him to stay away from me anyhow. :lol: Chris B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kitakaze, The shoulders are too low on Harley's "creature" film. The shoulders on Patty are correct.

I disagree with you offering an unqualified opinion as fact. You say Patty's shoulders are correct. I don't see that at all. I see in the image I posted a very clear indication of shoulder pads.

Two questions...

1) What is going on with Patty's sternum in the image I posted? That is very, very bizarre to me and I've seen nothing like that in any real ape.

2) What is your authority to tell me what is and is not correct about Patty's shoulders, or the shoulders shown in the Hoffman video? Other Bigfooters thought it was real and that it looked very much like Patty. What makes you more qualified to make statements of fact than those other Bigfooters? Who do I believe?

I don't know how one bulks up a costume shoulder wise but like everyone in the USA that's ever been to high school, I've seen football shoulder pads too. So, if Patty's a fake, hats off to Roger P. for getting it right. As far as similarities of Patty and Harley's "creature", they're both hairy and bulky but I think only Patty was the real creature.

The alleged creature in the Hoffman video appears very muscular. Do you think Patty appears muscular?

Regardless whether you believe the PG film to be real or a hoax, if you want to see what one of these creatures really looks like, there you have it with Patty.

Is this actually a fact? How might I determine this to be a fact? I have read plenty of reports where the Bigfoot looks nothing like Patty at all. Grey, white, skinny, glowing red eyes. What makes ChrisBFRPKY a better authority than, say, Scott Herriott. His claimed sighting was in Northern California. The creature was grey and had glowing red eyes. Do you have a Patty-like sighting in Kentucky? Who do I believe? See how that works?

As to why the film has stuck around so long, speculation abounds, but it's not the only footage ever shot claimed to be one of these creatures. So it's not just about the subject. I'll bet it's more on the order of it's never been proven a hoax. Maybe someday it will be? Maybe not. Science progresses and we see more in the video as it does.

1) We have other footage proclaimed to be of Bigfoot. They also look quite fake to me.

2) Bigfoot has never been proven real, so anyone who would tell me for a fact that it is is basically hamstrung, as far as I'm concerned.

3) To what video do you refer?

As far as why do alot of people reject Patty and consider her unrealistic, I think it's largely because they don't want to believe these things are out there. And since they've obviously never seen one, they reject any and all evidence of these creatures immediately. I don't blame them a bit. I was skeptical before too but not to the point of dismissing everything. People choose what to believe. I'm good with that.

1) I want to believe, thus the concept of not wanting to believe causing the subjective view that Patty is unrealistic doesn't apply to me. Thinking the head, shoulders, chest, arms, butt, legs, and feet look wonky and suit-like applies to me.

2) I will dismiss everything but a body, clear footage of good provenance, or reliable evidence such as matching DNA that points to a higher primate that is neither human nor any other known ape. I don't believe you had a sighting, and I might even doubt myself if I thought I saw one unless it was really clear and neither a hoax or a misidentification. Hoaxes and misidentifications are a proven fact of life, Bigfoot is not. I'm good with that. I still enjoy Bigfoot as a myth, though in my heart I think it would be awesome if it were real. It is like playing with toy jets. Wouldn't it be awesome to fly one? Except I know jets exist and that people go into the air force and learn how to fly them. That's cool. Humans do awesome things, like building F-22's. I think if we can build F-22's we can get a type specimen for what would be one of the largest and most widely distributed animals in North America. I think if Bigfoot or Dogman or any other great big animal lives in Kentucky, we can see its bones in a museum.

That is my philosophy.

As for me when it comes to the evidence on the P/G film, I don't care who said what to who, if someone was being sued, or even is one was a short timer due to cancer, or someone's cousin's brother-in-law's sister said they know somebody that was Patty. I don't care if Gimlin's wife was to now come forward and claim she was actually Patty on the creek bottom that day.....None of that proves or disproves the subject shown in the P/G video and to me it will always be all about the video.

I think the fact that you don't care about those things indicates a certain level of credulousness. I think of Patricia Patterson admitted a hoax, I would certainly accept it. I am trying to beat her to it.

As far as the delusional AF guy, don't worry, he reported himself in order to be discharged, it's likely he didn't really think he was Capt Kirk, and was putting on an act, but I told him to stay away from me anyhow. :lol: Chris B.

So the first implication that the guys was bonkers was not that simple, and it seems clear you were dealing with a guy that simply didn't want to be in the military. The military is not for everybody, and some people will do wonky things to get out of it. I have what I think are very strong reasons to think Bob Heironimus was filmed in a Bigfoot suit by Roger Patterson. I have spoken with the people who swear this to be true. I do not think they were all nefariously colluding to hoodwink me. I would think it more likely for one person in Kentucky claiming to have seen Bigfoot to be hoodwinking me than a bunch of people in the PNW telling me the details of a hoax. I think Bob heironimus was a hoaxer - an admitted hoaxer. I think Bob Gimlin is a hoaxer who hasn't admitted it yet.

It is certainly within the realm of possibility that I am wrong about Patterson and Gimlin's specific claim, and any that you might make about Bigfoot in Kentucky. I am not saying you are lying about anything, as you have yet to make a clear and specific claim. Even if you did, there are other explanations than deceit, though people do do that a lot in Bigfootery. Most Bigfooters are not at all deceitful. Most Bigfooters are regular people with an interest in the cool idea of Bigfoot. Bigfoot actually being real and escaping our detection across Canada and America is not cool to me. To me it is absurd. I trust claims that have proof, not claims without them. That is the essence of being a skeptic and I'm good with that. It means I am much less likely to be duped or hoodwinked.

That is my philosophy. I respect you to have yours, and I only ask that I be given the respect to have mine and that is equally as valid as yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisBFRPKY

Kitakaze, I have offered my opinion, nobody is gonna force you to believe one way or the other. My opinion of why I think the P/G film looks real and why the Harley H. film doesn't carries as much weight as your opinion that Patty is a suit with shoulder pads. I don't ask you to qualify your opinion, that's just silly. Do you crave conflict or something? And your opinion is fine by me. I'm certainly not an expert on filming and never claimed as much. You are also right about me not making any specific claims here on the new BFF, it's nice to know there are those that are ready and watching for when or if I do.

I think maybe you misunderstand what a forum about Bigfoot is about. It's a discussion of the subject. I personally like to compare findings with other researchers, discuss ideas and try to better understand these creatures. Qualify, qualify, qualify. Ridiculous. Unless you're trolling for information to place in a new book for publication, there should be no need to "qualify" statements or posts. As you have pointed out these creatures have not been proven to exist so from that point of view any discussion should be considered an opinion.

I think the P/G film may be your reason for living but to me it's not. I really don't care if it's real footage or not. It's my opinion that it's right on, oh but, you've already prepared for my response by saying you don't think I've had a sighting, so again, It's my opinion Patty's real. It seems to be your very passionate opinion that Patty is not, ok, again fine by me. I stick with my statement that Patty is right on, don't believe me, (but mark it down somewhere I said it.)

As far as anyone from KY trying to hoodwink you, Not me. I don't care if you believe or not. It is kinda funny though. I think you really want to know if these creatures exist or not. I know they do, but you can never know they don't. It's not fair for you and I really do feel for you but that's the way it is until a body is brought forth. I respect your opinions and others opinions as well but, never tell me what I saw or what I didn't see, unless you were present. Let's respect each other and not call anyone a liar even if we start it with "I think". Those kind of statements lead to face to face encounters for explanations of meaning. Chris B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I want to make it clear that making references that suggest there is dishonesty in a this or any other thread is IMO, a violation of forum rules in several ways.

First off, it is akin to calling someone a liar even though there is no direct specificity as to who is being referenced.

Secondly, statements like that are incivil and rather taunting in nature. Remember, if you don't have something good or constructive to say, it's probably better to keep it to yourself.

I've received several reports from different members on two posts that prompted this post of mine.

Several walked away from the little dust-up in the *Two Strong Reasons.....* thread that was recently closed with some wounds. I don't want to see the same thing happen here.

So, disagree/debate/discuss heartily. But do so in a civil and respectful manner and leave the suggestive innuendo out of the conversation.

I'd also like to thank those that reported the posts they took issue with as opposed to responding in kind within the thread.

There is a method to my moderation if you guys haven't noticed by now. Initially I'll try and correct matters with a post like this within the thread. If the advisory post by me is ignored, I feel like I've given fair warning and then I take additional action.

I take no pleasure in doing so.

So, make my life just a bit easier and the forum more enjoyable by conducting yourselves in accordance with the rules and civil discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...