Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

PGF Hoax


River

Recommended Posts

Turtle shell gap?

underbuttocks-turtle.gif

The more I look at it, the more it looks like a man in a suit. I don't know why I ever entertained the idea that it could be real.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not every expert costume designer believes the PGF film is real. In fact check out the 2007 episode of Best Evidence where legendary special effects and make up designer Dick Smith not only says the Bigfoot suit is fake he even calls it amateur at best, he even gives his reasons, one of which was the way the fur looks he doesn't think it looks like real fur. Rick Baker who is also a special effects and make up expert also believes that it is just a suit. So where are all these make up designers that believe the film is real?

Edited by Matt121
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was researching the film, I found only one proponent of the films authenticity that worked in the makeup/suit industry. I found 10 well known makeup/suit guys that thought it was a guy in a suit. (i made a list of them at some point, but it escapes me at the moment and i got tired of the he said she said stuff a long time ago lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not every expert costume designer believes the PGF film is real. In fact check out the 2007 episode of Best Evidence where legendary special effects and make up designer Dick Smith not only says the Bigfoot suit is fake he even calls it amateur at best, he even gives his reasons, one of which was the way the fur looks he doesn't think it looks like real fur. Rick Baker who is also a special effects and make up expert also believes that it is just a suit. So where are all these make up designers that believe the film is real?

Exactly. One person (Bill Munns) claims it is not a suit, so the rest suddenly do not exist. The word Verne Langdon used to describe it was "crappy".

When I was researching the film, I found only one proponent of the films authenticity that worked in the makeup/suit industry. I found 10 well known makeup/suit guys that thought it was a guy in a suit. (i made a list of them at some point, but it escapes me at the moment and i got tired of the he said she said stuff a long time ago lol)

That would have to be Bill Munns, I do not know of another suit proponent from the business.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. One person (Bill Munns) claims it is not a suit, so the rest suddenly do not exist. The word Verne Langdon used to describe it was "crappy".

That would have to be Bill Munns, I do not know of another suit proponent from the business.

Correct. I speak with him fairly often via email. Very nice gentleman and well educated. You might might not expect to hear that from me but just because myself and him have differing opinions about the film doesn't mean I don't like him or have a lot of respect for his work in the film industry. I've found him to be very approachable and willing to engage in thoughtful dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patterson isn't in front of where the other track is. That is what the diagrams are for. There is one showing a single frame that has both prints in it - showing their spatial relationship in the scene. The following track (the 4/4 in the 4 track footage) was not there during the footage of Patterson making the cast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. I speak with him fairly often via email. Very nice gentleman and well educated. You might might not expect to hear that from me but just because myself and him have differing opinions about the film doesn't mean I don't like him or have a lot of respect for his work in the film industry. I've found him to be very approachable and willing to engage in thoughtful dialogue.

Not at all, I too greatly respect Mr Munn's and his expertise, and I have read his extensive threads at the BFF. I found his prose excellent, great attitude, and his information mostly helpful, I just found a couple of small, but crucial discrepancies. That is about all I could say about the man. I certainly could not fault his character, and it is obvious that his experience is plenty, it is just there are more ways to skin a cat than the instructions in Bill's thread at the BFF cover. Thoughtful is an excellent description IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weird sideways looking knee.

X marks the spot. Like nothing in nature.

hipwadersfold.gif

I think the quality of the film is hard to determine much from, it is so grainy that one can read almost anything into it. Bt there s no getting around the butt diaper. Large enough to see it is patently a ridiculous rear end. That is fake as fake can be.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

More than once I saw attempts to reconstruct the gait of "Patty", in all cases except one (Best Evidence: Bigfoot 2007), the experimenters recognized the non-reproducibility of the gait.
In my opinion, no one took into account the condition and type of soil, that significantly affect the gait. Also, the individual data of the actor in the gorilla-costume in most cases wasn't taken into account.
I decided to try to find in real life a person, that behaves naturally and  fit in the structure of a figure of Patty, and does not imitate anyone.

Where to find Patty? (Debunk Patterson-Gimlin Film) 1080px

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 years between the start of this thread and now.   Still we are no further in proving bigfoot is real.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2017 at 4:51 AM, Myles said:

6 years between the start of this thread and now.   Still we are no further in proving bigfoot is real.

And only 3 pages to show for it....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/28/2011 at 6:04 PM, psyche101 said:

I think the quality of the film is hard to determine much from, it is so grainy that one can read almost anything into it. Bt there s no getting around the butt diaper. Large enough to see it is patently a ridiculous rear end. That is fake as fake can be.

I do agree with Psyche about the butt. That is a weird looking butt. Probably the most compelling bit to point at it being a suit. I think the white feet can be explained, and the saggy baggy can be explained, but not the weird looking rear end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2017 at 9:16 PM, DieChecker said:

I do agree with Psyche about the butt. That is a weird looking butt. Probably the most compelling bit to point at it being a suit. I think the white feet can be explained, and the saggy baggy can be explained, but not the weird looking rear end.

I don't know there are billions of people on this planet, what are the odds of finding a couple of people that walk a certain way.:w00t:

jmccr8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
37 minutes ago, Agishe said:

Join scenes in PGF. "Patty" was shot not at once.

Traces of editing in PGF  At 18 sec

(low speed)

Can't see it myself. Besides which, why would they need to edit that? It's an awful piece of film the bigfoot believers automatically edit in their own minds anyway. 

Edited by oldrover
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Can't see it myself. Besides which, why would they need to edit that?

Came to the right leg. Stand for a while, and started also with the right.
This can only be a reference point for further editing.
It also indicates that "Patty" was walking along a certain trajectory and filming not was the one-time event (for editing).

Quote

t's an awful piece of film the bigfoot believers automatically edit in their own minds anyway.

We have never seen the original... anyway
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Agishe said:

Came to the right leg. Stand for a while, and started also with the right.
This can only be a reference point for further editing.
It also indicates that "Patty" was walking along a certain trajectory and filming not was the one-time event (for editing).

5p24n5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person in the film doesn't move like anything or anybody that lives or works in the woods. Case closed!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.