I would actually agree with you, in your statement that " with nothing immediately leaping out at me of being realistic or being fake." which is why I think people who casually call it "an obvious fake" are actually more intent on closing the discussion with an intimidating bluff, than intent on reasoning it through.
The thing is, the majority of the people here are saying that after looking into all aspects of the film. That, and everyone's perceptions are different. For all I know, I could be missing some obvious signs of fakeness. That said, there are details that seem suspicious to me when I take a closer look at the film. But, as I looked at the details surrounding the filming in order to determine that the film was a hoax, that isn't much of an issue to me.
I would agree with you here, in general, but the PG Film has been subjected to analysis by so many people of so many varied levels of expertise and knowledgable disciplines, over 40 years, that the fact that the debate is still raging on suggests to me this is an exception to your above generalized remark.
I must disagree. I linked to that thread on Billy Meier specifically because after years of debate, analysis of his films, and exposures of his hoaxes, he still has supporters and his hoaxes are still being treated as a valid mystery.
I forget the exact date, but didn't the "thigh bulge" go unnoticed for decades until Doug Hajicek pointed it out? To me, that doesn't say a whole lot about how well people were looking at the film.
And, to me, the film hasn't been analyzed continuously for over the years. I'd say that the film got the most attention when it first appeared. After debuting it to fellow Bigfoot researchers (with only the "father of cryptozoology" himself, Bernard Heuvelmans expressing the opinion that it was a hoax), it was then shopped around to scientists (and Disney executive Ken Peterson). Results were mixed, but I think we both know which results got the most publicity in Bigfoot literature and documentaries. Janos Prohaska put in his two cents on the film, but there is some suspicion due to some of his claims contradicting his work experience. I also recall some Russian scientists with an interest in unknown hominids gave the film a thumbs-up, but they're hardly an unbiased source.
There was that frame-by-frame analysis in the 70's with Bob Burns and Rick Baker, but that was a private matter that didn't get mentioned to the public until 1996.
In more recent times, MK Davis finally stabilized the film, but fell victim to peyote vision. His claim that the film proved the subject is real gained controversy due to the use of the phrase "digger indian" and, as I suspect, since he said that Patty was a human being instead of going with the party line of "her" being an ape. On top of that, the whole "Bigfoot massacre" incident torpedoed what was left of his credibility amongst the Bigfoot community.
There's also the flawed NASI report and the other recent stuff by proponents. One that immediately springs to mind was the one involving Owen Caddy and Dr. Swindler (who, despite claims of him being a skeptic, was referred to as a fence-sitter by Dr. Meldrum about 25 minutes into his first appearance on "Let's Talk Bigfoot," which can be found on
this page). Their claims of a moving mouth and eyelids invalidating the possibility of a hoax was simply absurd. We both know that masks with a
moving mouth and
eyelids (1:14-1:18) existed back then (although I support the background detail and peyote vision explanations for those). I think that part of the problem with the previous analyses is that many who looked at the film knew little to nothing about special effects and/or failed to account for film artifacts and background "noise."
Oh, and Stan Winston had a look at it for "LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE."
The issue of Kokachrome development is clearly a significant issue in the debate. It definitely needs further research and study.
I'll say. Because if that claim about it being impossible to develop Kodachrome film in 48 hours is true, then that'll put a bullet right between the film's eyes for the undecided.
Thanks for this. Wish we had a higher resolution version. Maybe one will turn up. Would be helpful.
I think they'll be putting out the original Star Trek series on Blu-Ray to tie into that upcoming Star Trek movie, so you might want to keep an eye out for that.
Fascinating you should say this, because that's esentially the approach I am trying to take, my own analysis, by my own methods and from my own experience, with no reliance on the arguments, dogma, suspicions or beliefs of others (for or against either position).
Please don't make the same mistake that others have made over the past few decades and actually look at the circumstances involving the filming. You see, there's a fatal flaw in analyzing the subject of the film: If a detail that can be matched up to a suit can also be matched up to a picture of an ape, then you get a stalemate If it can't be matched up to a feature on an ape, then we get the standard "unknown species" argument. This virtually guarantees that trying to figured out whether or not Patty is a hoax based on the film is doomed to inconclusion.
Some have remarked that if a conclusion can't be determined after all these years, then analyzing the images on it are a dead end. This means that other avenues of exploration have to be looked into.
John WS said:
I watched all three segments on youtube and I can't get that damned bigfoot song out of my head
Believe me, I feel your pain...
I was a huge Goodies fan as a kid, but I had stopped watching it 10 years later when this episode apparently aired. I watched all three segments on youtube and I can't get that damned bigfoot song out of my head 
.
