As luck would have it my buddy's project has started this month (instead of June as I'd thought it would) and I've been too busy to do anything with the Patty Junior project hanging in the garage.

Even though I'd planned on not showing anything until it was done, I figured I'd better pop in and show something lest someone think I wasn't serious about doing it.

Here's what I've done so far. Not much, but it's a start. I promise I will get to it as soon as another hole in the schedule opens up.

At the top left is the start of the upper body. Far from finished, it's just the beginning of it.

I went ahead and tried my hand at sculpting a new nose in clay (since I felt the TOR mask's nose wasn't quite wide enough). I also made my breast mold for future breast-making.

This is a pic of the current condition of the TOR mask since I cleaned it and tried to scrape the hair off it. I'll be using it as a base for the head.

I realized (after looking at some professionally made undersuits) that I had made my thigh leg blend in too much. I should wrap the upper thigh more around the leg to create more of that infamous "leg muscle insertion" people think they are seeing in Patty. I'll do that when I get back to it.

The knee pad I'm using is one I ran across that has a similar (though certainly not exact) set of ridges on it as the ones used to make Patty's knees. If you watch MK's enhanced footage closely you can see the knee pad once you know what to look for.

Anyway, it's a start. I will get back to it as soon as possible, but I have to work for my friend first. He helped me on my project a few years back and I don't forget that kind of thing.

I shall return. :wink:

Take care,

Dfoot

and this is stuff that patterson would have been able to get to? without too much trouble?

Little Searcher:

And your question touches on one of the central challenges // issues related to recreation attempts...

First off, it seems to me, one must decide on a goal - one SHOULD define exactly what it is one is setting out to do.... To "recreate" Patty? To recreate Patty using only materials, techniques, and technologies COMMONLY AVAILABLE in the early 1960s? To recreate Patty using only materials, techniques and technologies commonly available in the early 1960s AND likely to be known by a relative "layman" such as Roger Patterson -- or do you assume that ANY materials, techniques and technologies which might have been known to the best Hollywood effects men are fair game? How about budget - low? high? irrelevant? Can you work with an assitant, or must you work alone (do you assume Patterson had co-conspirators? Or do you not even assume Patterson made the suit himself?)? Can you incorporate "post 1960s" innovations and ideas on the grounds that whoever built the Patty suit COULD have been "ahead of their time"?

I feel obliged to repeat the statement that makes the teeth of "suit guys" stand on edge... as a real monster geek, I watched a LOT of "guys in suits" over the years of my misspent youth... and I honestly cannot recall seeing a gorilla/monster of 1960s/1970s vintage that looked like anything but...well..a guy in a suit. The slender ape-men of "2001" were pretty cool, but they WERE slender (i.e. of fairly common human proportions) and muscle tone was not an issue. Patty doesn't look that way to me, and never has. HUGELY subjective, I know. Of no value at all. But what can I say - I see what I see.

So...I think your question is a very important and fundamental one. For what THAT is worth!

Shadow

Please don't encourage Dfoot. He talks too much without saying anything.

The goal should be 30 seconds of video, that people who are reasonably sure Patty is not a hoax,
can look at and say:

“ Hmmmmmmmm.. You have got something there .. “

Then, we can take a look at how it was done, and what it cost…

The detractors can then complain that the recreation was not accomplished with the supposed
limited talents and resources of Roger Patterson..

It’s just my opinion, but I think Dfoot has made a big mistake in showing the man behind the curtain before the illusion has been performed…

There is a real catch-22 here..

How do you hoax a hoax ..

Believers, knowing they are looking at a hoax will never admit it measures up to the original, or claim that
the re-creator had the advantage of a model to work from …


The only alternative to Patty being a hoax, is that she was the last of a species that has subsequently died without a trace. Those who are comfortable with the latter, are in no danger of being proven wrong.

I agree, Greg.... you don't TELL the audience what you're gonna do... you just DO IT !!!

Dfoot should lay low for a while...
secretly finish his project & then...
try to pull a "Penn & Teller" on us !!! :new_whistle:

You assume so much - for knowing so little about some of us.

Last of a species? There were tracks of three individuals in the area at the time, and, no, they weren't made by the jolly, hoaxing Wallace brothers.

I agree with the point, but the wording is a bit off.

It wasn't the man or the monster behind the curtain.

It was the agenda behind the man.




I think we will see that tired trick pulled many more times than we think today.

It's already popular (at least with the Hollywood crowd).

And what was the result of the investigation those tracks ?


Lu, explain to me how a track of anything, without the object that made it,
is evidence of anything besides a track?


At least with the Wallace tracks, we know what made them.. There's a clue there somewhere..

Hunster wrote: "It's already popular (at least with the Hollywood crowd)."

------
Popular, and yet so FUTILE !!!

"QUIXOTIC", if you will......

Dfoot has cast himself in the role of a modern day "Man of La Mancha" ....

....he's joisting with "Windmills".... ! :icon_bang:


I see the only way Dfoot can salvage anything from all of this, is to "shoot-the-wad" & just do
THE BEST BIGFOOT COSTUME THAT HE CAN DO !!!!

Forget "PATTY"......
Just go with "SASQUATCH" !!!!

I'm tellin' ya, man.....
I think you can PROBABLY make an EXCELLENT costume, with the "look"... & some movement ... & muscle def.... & a whole bunch of awesome characteristics that you can uniquely bring to the project because of your experience & BF knowledge.
Hell, it'll probably look better than 90% of the CRAP we've seen in the movies so far.

Even on your "budget" (hey, we all got bills...I understand), I'm bettin' that your suit & mask are gonna be AWESOME !!!
:new_thumbsupsmileyanim:


.....but, it'll never be Patty.... cuz, #1... She's a product of NATURE.... not a 1967 go-rilla costume, fresh outta the trunk of a car.
#2... Like it or not, You've got the significant advantage of 39 years of "Cine-Magic Knowledge" that you will consciously or un-consciously use in the making of your suit.
Whether it's the hair... or the adhesives... or the molding of Latex Boobies (BTW... who was your casting model?), etc...., it's gonna be DIFFERENT because it's modern. Not to mention, you WORK in the Industry & are privvy to the FX "Magicians" Secrets.
I say that invalidates your Patty re-creation attempt before it's ever even started....sorry, but there's just no way around it ! Roger Patterson had none of your advantages.... soooo... the experiment is rendered "MOOT".

HOWEVER !!!
You should still go all out, take yer time & make the best damn Bigfoot costume that we, or HOLLYWOOD, has ever seen !!!
To the best of your abilities.... let it be what it is & let it stand on it's own merit.

Yer Hollywood cronies might even be impressed !
CHA-CHING !!!

But, you, nor anybody else, will ever duplicate Patty.
To attempt it is truly an exercise in futility !!!

Just go for 'SASQUATCH" & blow Harry Henderson outta the water !!!!

Best o'Luck to Ya, Greg !!!

The notion that Dfoot or anyone else that wants to "hoax a hoax" should lay low or stay "behind the curtain" seems odd to me.

Build suit.
Have someone get in suit.
Film someone in suit.

What's the big deal if it was just a guy in a suit?
"Patty Jr." should be a snap to build - Or should it?

I know that SG and Dfoot think that we "believers" are braindead droolers worshipping the PGF.... and maybe some of us are just that..... but even the die hard suitniks have to admit that we droolers have had plenty of reasons to reject the PGF "duplication" attempts so far.

I'm tired of hearing how easy and straightforward it would have been for Patterson to have created the PGF hoax - and then after being told this, we witness the consistent and total impotence of all who try.

Even those in Hollywood - who have been trying to create life-like apes and/or apemen for nearly a century - haven't produced anything as realistic, IMHO. (Save for much more modern comp-gen. stuff)

And yet somehow, it's the PGF "faithful" that are living in fantasy land? - - - -
Whatever.

Build the suit. Show us how easy you keep saying it would have been for good'ole Roger.
Don't hide out until everything is complete. What's the point in doing that?

Is there going to be some attempt to present a "real" bigfoot film? And then see how us Patty droolers will react? (Yawn.) Dfoot has already done something like that and it backfired. I'd say everyone was pretty objective about Dfoot's fake offerings so why would a much more comprehensive, PGF-like film generate a different result?

If the footage is as good as the PGF - even if it looks somewhat different - the Pro-PGF people will admit it. Why wouldn't we in the face of objective reality? We'll be better off for having been proven wrong. Actually, I'm looking forward to something that approaches the look and movements of Patty... with all that entails. I think it would be cool if someone could specifically do a PGF duplication with modern materials - even comp-gen animation.

I don't expect that many would care to try this.... but for all of those that say that the PGF is a simple matter of a few cheap gorilla suits and masks slapped together. If it's such a slam dunk, then bring it on. Proving all of these pompous claims of forgery would be liberating for a suitnik wouldn't it?

No hiding, no tricks, no Photoshop, no bullshit.

I agree--that should be a reasonable goal for someone who hasn't already taken the time to piss all over his own credibility.

I was one of the first to slap Dfoot on the back and start handing out the accolades. Now I don't care what he does because he has proven himself unworthy that initial enthusiasm.

Skeptical G:

Hmmm. More and more, I think your screen name, if it is to be truly reflective of your outlook, should be "I HAVE DECIDED IT IS ALL A HOAX" Greg. With all due respect. Really. Seriously.

If BF afficianados are all kool-aid sipping true believers, why is it that there are so FEW photos or pieces of "filmed" evidence which are widely embraced? Just look at this Board. The "recent" Canadian footage has been generally relegated to the "blobsquatch" category, at best. The recent "Minnesotan" footage was pretty quickly and roundly criticized. The recent photos of... something or someone on a mountain top (sorry, my never reliable memory can't come up with the shorthand name for these couple of pics) has met with considerable skepticism. The "Sonoma" video was the subject of quite a bit of discussion, but as the "suspicious" behavior of the source of the film became more apparent, the general tone turned sharply towards critique. In fact, on this Board, the very term Blobsquatch is a term of derision, and is wielded pretty mercilessly. There ARE a few pieces of film, and a FEW photos, that continue to inspire interest and discussion. But even there, the opinions are far from unanimous, and most that I see assert that the footage is intriguingly suggestive. Not definitive (thus the ongoing constant debate over "Kill or Don't Kill")....

And the level of discussion and analysis put forward on the Patterson film is, I think, both considerable and admirable. Whether I buy all of it - in either direction - these guys are way out of my league. I am honest in saying all I bring to the table re Patterson is the worthless observation that, to me, it doesn't look at all like a simple guy running across a clearing in a gorilla suit. The level of discussion here is way beyond that. Folks are giving this some serious thought.

Note that when D-FOOT tried his photo-hoax stunt, there was not a ton of posting saying "that suit stinks", which you would expect if your premise was correct. Rather, folks were astute enough and cool-headed enough to find him out in a wholly rational, sensible, and clever way.

Clearly, there are obstacles for would-be recreaters. No doubt, there will be some who, KNOWING it is a recreation, will see it differently. And yes, some have made up their minds - just as you seem to have (but in the other direction). That being said, I think you are being glibly unfair when you basically, obliquely suggest that those who don't share your view are incapable of anything approaching fairness in their thought process. I don't think this is an easy crowd, by any means. IMHO, most here who think there may be SOMETHING to BF are very much on their guard lest they become easy marks for the hoaxers and charlatans.

Shadow

That would be very bad... perpetrating a hoax on these Forums would garner the hoaxer a minimum seven-day suspension, if not an outright ban.

Much better that Dfoot goes through the step-by-step construction of the suit and then show us the footage made using said suit.

Please don't encourage another 30+ pages of B.S. that we have endured already. Peace

I guess you don't hear how that sounds in the context of the PGF forum...


" If you fool us, boy are you in trouble .. "


Oh, well...

In response to ShadowPrime's previous post......

:new_thumbsupsmileyanim: :appl: :appl: :yeahthat: :notworthy: :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

Great post...as most (if not all) of your's are. Rational, logical, and level-headed...and no insults. They're a pleasure to read.
That is the whole idea of this forum, to LOGICALLY discuss ATB.
And not to insult people's ability to think...like this...quote, Skeptical Greg, a little way's back...

....Pre-judging people :smily1262: , and I could fill a page or two with Dfoot's insults.





And a good example of this...unfortunately, I must say...is the Memorial Day video. I've been posting still frames recently that clearly show something bouncing off the subject's back (possibly an infant :new_lmaosmiley: ) and there've been only 2 positive responses to them. Like you said SP, if we're all blind believers, there would have been a LOT more people jumping on the bandwagon, giving it the :new_thumbsupsmileyanim: . But there hasn't been.......yet. :wink:

Whoa there Shadow... That is not what happened at all, but it does point out something important that we see happen a lot when anyone tries to really get to the bottom of this whole Patterson affair.

Cool-headed and astute reactions that "found me out" was precisely what didn't happen. Quite the opposite.

I showed various photos of Patty and got plenty enough barbs regarding a 'failure to come close to Patty' - UNTIL I deliberately showed clearer close-ups of Patty. Only then did ONE PERSON realize that what I was actually doing was showing the crowd photos of Patty to see if they'd consider the idea that, perhaps, some might be a bit blinded by a belief system instead of looking at things with an unprejudiced eye.

What I'm saying here is that the ability to re-write history seems to be a nessescity when it comes to constantly proclaiming a "Patty is real" theory. JOHN GREEN has recently done this.

Patterson and DeAtley used Green to see if their scam would work. DeAtley says the Bigfooters ate it up when they saw the film. He's spelling it out for us as obviously as he can without admitting anything.

Roger just did his breathless con job on them and they went for it. Few seemed to go very far into testing if whether what Patterson was claiming might be a hoax. DeAtley said they were giving the Bigfooters what they wanted; apparent proof. He says they just lapped it up. "Patty" fit just what they needed at the time to "prove" they were right in their theories.

Today GREEN contends that he knew all along WALLACE was making fake prints and he has to say that those prints have nothing to do with the prints he found at WALLACE'S work sites. The truth is just the opposite. Those actually are one and the same. Instead of admitting he was a temporary victim of a con artist, he continues the ridiculous claim that he was never fooled and the original prints were not made by WALLACE'S wooden feet. That is not research.

That particular GREEN episode is the same story we see today with the little test I did. Incredibly, it was something that lasted only hours and was meant to be admitted to openly (and was). Yet, people living in denial (like Green) or outright liars who give interviews and perpetrate a deliberate hoax for decades (not someone trying to get to the truth - but a conman) like BOB GIMLIN, are not called on their misrepresentations of the facts. That's the amazingly ludacris part of all this.

Looking into the possibility of some unknown species having existed isn't ludacris. Believing con men despite overwhelming evidence of the con is.


SKEPTICAL GREG: I had not planned on showing anyone anything until it was done, but since my pal's project got moved up in scheduling and I knew I had to go to work I figured my not showing up around here would cause people to start claiming I'd never planned on doing anything or that I was "pulling a con" or other such comments. So I figured I'd show something just so people would know I was serious and that I really was simply too busy to bother with it for a while.

It's really something to watch terms being thrown around like "suitniks" and other things. That's the type of of jargon usually used by propagandists working for media organizations seeking to minimize some political point of view. It's easy to recognize when people - instead of arguing various sides of an issue based on information gathered - begin to attack the person delivering the disliked information. No true facts are needed - just jargon. Good for a political ad to sway simplistic minds; not so good for anyone seeking answers.

I can understand the initial upset caused by realizing that some had jumped into attack mode earlier when I posted the Patty-as-another-suit pics. But instead of taking a step back and realizing that maybe (just maybe) it's easy to get caught up in a belief system to the point of not being able to be objective about evidence, some keep falling deeper into the abyss. And that's pretty sad to watch.

Constantly whining about me being untrustworthy for daring to show you something about how we often judge evidence based on an emotional bias instead of logic isn't helping anyone to learn any more than they knew in 1975.

Here's another comp for you ---

At the top is ROSS HAGEN (Lee Lilley). He's a well known character actor in Hollywood who starred in DAKTARI in 1968. He's the man Patterson stayed with when traveling to Hollywood. He was also a producer and director of low budget films.

In the middle you can see a big footprint made by me simply gluing the cast I'd made to the bottom of my shoe. I weigh 160 lbs at this time. I stepped into the garden dirt. It's not nearly as soft as the fresh road dirt churned up by Wallace's equipment we see Green and associates photographing, but we can see very little difference in the depth. Yet for some reason I was told that the prints Green photographed were made by a creature of immense weight and could not have been made by a human. This info came from Green. This info is false. He was fooling himself and he was inadvertantly fooling us. This needs to be corrected. Bad info in - worse info out.

Below ... you can see two of the lesser talented costume makers who worked with CHAMBERS and WAH CHANG sculpting. Stuntman Janos is sculpting the head of an "Anthropoid Ape" monster (that had a body of brown hair) which was used in THE OUTER LIMITS and in the original STAR TREK pilot. Harry Thomas was an assistant who worked on Wah Chang's team and did lots of low budget stuff on his own. Here he is sculpting an apeman mask in the 1950's that was never used in any film.

And at the bottom you can see a Wallace foot and the print it made in Green's photo.

I am not using any technique in making anything that wasn't available to this group. In fact, I don't have the tools or the skills that they did. Yet it's not that difficult to make something that would convince someone who really, really wanted to believe someone had a blurry film of a Bigfoot. This is what Patterson, Gimlin and DeAtley did with the aid of a couple of Hollywood fx guys and their discarded suit parts.

There is plenty of evidence that some sort of Sasquatch-type species may have roamed the earth. But there is even more evidence that Patterson was a hoaxer who used a suit and a couple of buddies to pull a scam. Forget attacking the messenger. Start attacking the evidence. Otherwise you'll spend your lives propping up a con man's scam being perpetrated against you.

Good luck.

- Dfoot

Wow.Good info there Dfoot.I was saying something similar to them only when I said it they all pretty much hated me for thinking Patty was fake.If they look at whats in front of them and the info on Patterson and everything it does all add up and eventually comes out to be that it was all a hoax.I would hate for anyone to spend years talking about this film abut how the muscles move and that there is no way that could be a human in a suit but they have to consider that a possibility on a count that Patterson was indeed a hoaxer and was involved with the Hollywood guy who makes those suits.

I disagree.

Believe me.I would love to think that Patty was a real bigfoot but there is too much evidence that explains why she is fake.

I disagree, Dfoot is a hoaxer and anything he says can't be trusted to be true.

Enough talk - talk is cheap Dfoot - and thats all you have offered for proof - TALK.

You all could probably look up some of the stuff Dfoot is talking about.You would probably be suprised to find that its true.

Dfoot wrote:

"There is plenty of evidence that some sort of Sasquatch-type species may have roamed the earth. But there is even more evidence that Patterson was a hoaxer who used a suit and a couple of buddies to pull a scam. Forget attacking the messenger. Start attacking the evidence. Otherwise you'll spend your lives propping up a con man's scam being perpetrated against you.

Good luck.

- Dfoot"

- - - :drug:

Does anyone else find these kind of patronizing statements sickening?

I find it amusing that some have developed almost a parental, "tough love" type attitude toward the wacky PGF proponents.

The notion that Patterson could have bought or built some sort of suit is beyond question. "The Making of Bigfoot" has covered this quite well already. If you want a comprehensive hoax scenario, read Long's book.

Curses!

Dfoot's trolling and I took the bait!

:icon_bang:

Nevermind, it's not even worth it.

Search and read. Search and read. Search and read.

thats the thing.I have search and read and I found alot of what Dfoot is talking about.Patterson was a hoaxer.It says that all over the place.So why not a hoaxer who was with a hollywood guy who makes ape suits not hoax bigfoot?

I smell something, and it aint bigfoots dingleberries.

Nope, and it an't bigfoot pheromones either, although it sure stinks... :new_whistle:

Use the quote feature to show who said you failed to come close to Patty in your hoax.



Your hoax did not last only hours, it went on for 2 days.




You were caught tampering and altering evidence several different times.

As opposed to providing ~ 24 feet of a 100 foot roll of film ?

No. as opposed to not tampering with evidence.

How is cutting out 75% of a roll of film ' not ' tampering with evidence ?

Can we please get back on topic of Patty Jr's progress and leave the back and forth over the film in their respective threads.

DFoot, time frame? When will this be done, and when or if finished; will we be able to view?

Would you mind also creating a list of materials used to make this creature suit?

Thank You

What does that have to do with Dfoot trying to prove his case based on evidence he himself tampered with?

You want to talk about Patterson cutting out 75% of the film go ahead, though I'm sure somebody would ask for a source on that. It still doesn't change the fact Dfoot has been tampering with more evidence than his admitted hoax.

I doubt DFoot would tell you when he will do his hoax because then when its done around that time you all would know its fake.Im sure he would make it so you all would say "there is no way that can be a human in a suit.Look at its muscles move!"I have heard that there was more footage on the Patterson film so I will try to find that link.

Just 75% of one roll.. It's called editing...

There are supposed to be other rolls, of which we have seen even less of.. Much less... There might be footage of a rehearsal or two.. Who knows ?

So, you are O.K. with some people tampering with evidence, just not Dfoot..

Or are we supposed to garner something else from that ?

Who said I'm ok with Patterson or anybody tampering with evidence? You see, this is where both you and Dfoot make a mistake. You're under the impression (or maybe just choose to paint it this way considering I've told you this many times now) that I am convinced the film is real. I'm not, and in fact I've been studying the film to see if it could be real or fake. In fact you could go through my posts and see where I've been skeptical of the film. It could very well be proven a fake and I'd be just fine with that, which is wy I repeatedly asked Greg Long when or if the Bob H recreation would ever come out.

The difference is that I will not accept smudged results and outright altered evidence to "Prove" a foregone conclusion. Maybe you feel the end justifies the means, the film has got to be a hoax, you've already argued for it, and if somebody tries to prove it's a hoax by unproportionally scaling an image to match it up to another one or leaves out significant parts of another's research and skews the conclusion drawn from that to support your case when in fact it's the opposite, well maybe that's acceptable to you because the film is a hoax, it's just got to be.

I don't work that way. If somebody's going to start pulling fast ones I'll call them on it and if they do it repeatedly then I'll remind them of it. That works both ways, look at the "Teeth" thread to see where others accused me of being a skeptic trying to prove the film a hoax because I adhered to pointing out inaccuracies.

It's not a kids war game, where I'm saying "That guy on your team cheated" and you say "Well that guy on your team cheated first" because, quite frankly, if I knew Patterson or Gimlin was fudging stuff you bet I'd say something. Yeah, I talked about Wilma Radford long ago. The sketches and their resemblance to Patty, the butt that got Walas to post, I even got into several debates about DeAtley's admitting it was a hoax. Heck man, there's a whole angle I've researched in ways not even Long did.

All that matters is the truth, whether hoax or fake. Can you rely on Dfoot to tell you the truth? Can you rely on him to not alter whatever he films of his suit? I can't. Not after this:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act...ndpost&p=305384
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act...ndpost&p=305102
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...=240&p=305388&#

Heck even just the other day he says this:


When in fact you see he started his hoax here, at Feb 28 2006, 01:17 PM :
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...c=13887&st=520#
and ended here, at Mar 1 2006, 10:29 PM :
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...c=13887&st=560#

And he keeps saying everybody was in denial but won't ever use the simple quote button to show who was. All his hoax really did was help open people's eyes to the BS he's been pulling. But maybe you like unreliable data.

I'm sorry, but I'll wait until somebody else who shows a history of honest research to prove the film a hoax (Yetifan, Tube, Volsquatch, and many many others come to mind) or rely on my own continuing research.

:appl:

Nicely said Wolftrax.

That whole thing confused the heck out of me! So I guess then DFoot is a liar??Im only asking because I didnt get any part of the links you posted meaning i didnt see how he was a liar in them.I also would like to know hen the film will be made and when we will see it.If he is only trying to show us that the Patterson film can be faked than he should tell us when the video will be out but if hes trying to make a hoax and tell people that he found bigfoot than he wont tell us when he will make it.Back to the PG film I just dont know what to REALLY think about it.Like i said before there is alot of evidence that says its fake and theres evidence that says its real.Which one to believe is beyond me.

I'm sorry, but I'll wait until somebody else who shows a history of honest research, to prove the creature seen in the film was/is an existing North American primate.

Meanwhile, if Dfoot doesn't bother with demonstrating that what we see in the PGF could be duplicated
with a costume, his detractors can rest easy, knowing that no one else is going to pop their bubble.

- - -

You seem to be under the impression that we are somehow afraid of said bubble being popped. Maybe in your mind, anyone who happens to think that the film is likely genuine is some sort of religious zealot who fears the crumbling of his or her "sacred icon".

As arrogant as that is, it's also simply not true.

That being said...... after nearly 40 years since the filming, I doubt the continued impotence of would-be PGF duplicators is in any kind of jeopardy.

But even if the bubble was popped, and it was clear that the PGF must have been a hoax, what would be so devastating about that? Golly-gosh, I guess the PGF was really a hoax.
Oh no.

For my part, I would consider myself a better person for having been proven wrong.
I welcome fully any new experimentation or evidence that goes farther in explaining the film either way.

Would that it were so. It took me a long time to realize that it only takes the possibility of the PGF being a hoax to turn members of this forum into a torch-wielding mob. The close-minded belief and confrontational PGF groupthink drove me away from being a onetime loyal reader.

Oh, yeah, that and the fact that I'm now pretty certain that there just ain't nothin' there.

Dfoot: Keep up the good work.

Avindair

I think you meant to say "It took me a long time to realize that it only takes the possibility of the PGF being a hoax to turn some members of this forum into a torch-wielding mob."

Right?

I stand corrected, Vol. Thanks.

Avindair

Must have missed this. Thank you, Wolf. :icon14: