• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. I just told you that I was swayed

Well, I can see that you were swayed, but what I find odd is that you were admittedly swayed by some of the least qualified FX people who've commented on it. Since then, many more guys have made their opinions known, but you don't listen to their opinions.

It's the same deal with the whole Munns thing, that guy may be a decent artist, but in terms of FX, he's pretty shoddy, and yet he's held in a very high regard by believers.

So yeah, I can see that you've been swayed, my question is why? And why choose to only listen to people who support it, despite being less qualified in their field of FX than others who have commented on it and declared it a fake?
 
Roger Knights...

Please provide details of Dale Sheets' experience and knowledge in the world of animatronics, fur costumes and/or make-up.
My research indicates he has none. He was a TV marketing executive and agent and because of the buyout of MCA by Universal Studios in 1962 - he accidently became movie executive. He left that job in 1969 and formed International Ventures Inc., (a talent management company) with his wife.

Please provide details of J. Kenneth Peterson's experience and knowledge in the world of animatronics, fur costumes and/or make-up.
My research indicates he had none. He was an award winning animator for Disney. Period.

Please explain - in detail - what expertise a marketing executive turned agent and an animator could provide regarding whether or not a major motion picture studio and its team of special effects people could "duplicate" the PGF.

Thank you.

I'm pretty sure I once read an article explaining why these guys weren't qualified to bother giving their FX opinion on the PGF, and since they claimed it'd be hard to replicate, it's obvious that they were shockingly uneducated in that particular field of expertise after all.
 
:biggrin: That might not be totally true. Former Benedictine monk and Bigfoot provocateur Matt Moneymaker™ has apparently seen hundreds of such creatures, many of them while filming his TV show. The cameras only catch his sincere reactions though, never the actual beast because it's not very interesting. He's far more photogenic. He doesn't care about all his HATERS either; as he put it earlier this year when accepting the Nobel Prize™, "Technology is just a tool of the devil, praise gawd, and besides it would just blow the surprise, thank you Jesus praise gawd!. That "surprise" of course being an authentic glimpse of Bigfoot that paying customers of Moneymaker™ Amalgamated Tour Industries® LLC get when they go on a MATI Bigfoot Tour™. They're that outfit known for running Bigfoot ragged all over the country and then laughing about it. Don't they know Bigfoot are people too?!

Lest we forget Bobes, either. That man is an expert field-caller!
 
Less than 10% of Bigfoot researchers in the nation live within easy enough driving distance of Yakima

lol. But they will travel order of magnitude more to a silly bigfoot conference, or to Area X for a pretend week-end of encounters. In the post-telephone age distance is irrelevant.

We know you don't believe in bigfoot yourself. Because you spend your time doing this instead of anything that would result in finding a bigfoot.

We know you like the game. The Bigfoot Live Action Alternate Reality Game. Because we see you playing that game instead.

We are supposed to convince you of something you already know: there is no bigfoot. But at least I'll make it clear that most of us know you don't believe what you just wrote about researchers being incapable of driving to Yakima. Creating plausible deniability is a big part of the game.

Researchers were not really avoiding the most important work to do surrounding the principles to a hoax. They just could not afford to drive there. Even a rich boy like Green who drove internationally, or flew to so many different places much further. He could afford to do that instead.

Duper's Delight is the little thrill we get by pulling the wool over people's eyes and making them think you buy your own spoon-bending propaganda. It is common to all woo practicioners.
 
I'm basically still trying to wrap my head around how the Zapruder film is anything akin to the PGF, and how on earth the PGF could ever be deemed "better evidence," that's simply mind-numbing in its oddness. Talk about disingenuous.
 
<snip>
It’s clear to you; it’s not clear to me. Your certainty that your opponents cannot sincerely differ with you on this matter (e.g., your implication that your opponents are “lower”) is very offensive to me and forecloses further discussion with you.

Moderator(s) (or Parcher):
Is there an Ignore button? (I don’t see one.)
Please tell Gilbert Syndrome—and anyone else who might think of diverging far from the Heironimus topic—to stop derailing threads.
Also, is there a way to turn off the viewing of signature lines?

Now that's entertainment! :D

Things are a little different here than what people found on the old BFF.
Fact-like fiction and pronouncements of firmly held but non-factual beliefs will not cut it here.
 
Please provide details of Dale Sheets' experience and knowledge in the world of animatronics, fur costumes and/or make-up.
My research indicates he has none. He was a TV marketing executive and agent and because of the buyout of MCA by Universal Studios in 1962 - he accidently became movie executive. He left that job in 1969 and formed International Ventures Inc., (a talent management company) with his wife.
I’ll quote from the Wikipedia entry on the Patterson film I originally cited:
Dale Sheets and Universal Studios. Patterson, Gimlin, and DeAtley screened the film for Dale Sheets, head of the Documentary Film Department, and unnamed technicians in the special effects department at Universal Studios in Hollywood. . . . Their conclusion was:

“We could try (faking it), but we would have to create a completely new system of artificial muscles and find an actor who could be trained to walk like that. It might be done, but we would have to say that it would be almost impossible.” [source: Hunter & Dahinden, Sasquatch / Bigfoot, 119]

A more moderate version of their opinion [when interviewed by a different person] was,
"if it is [a man in an ape suit], it's a very good one—a job that would take a lot of time and money to produce." [source: Dick Kilpatrick, National Wildlife magazine, April-May 1968]
Wikipedia (based on the Hunter and Dahinden book) credits Dale Sheets as being “head of the Documentary Film Department.” Are you sure he wasn’t? And it wasn’t just Dale Sheets’s opinion, it was also that of “unnamed technicians.”
Please provide details of J. Kenneth Peterson's experience and knowledge in the world of animatronics, fur costumes and/or make-up.
My research indicates he had none. He was an award winning animator for Disney. Period.
The Wikipedia entry indicated he’d been promoted to an executive position, so no “period”:
Disney executive Ken Peterson. Krantz reports that in 1969, John Green (who owned a first-generation copy of the original Patterson film) interviewed Disney executive Ken Peterson, who, after viewing the Patterson film, asserted "that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film."
If he was only a cartoon animator, then you have a point. But he might have had some knowledge of animatronics from being in contact with people in that position and from being an executive. Presumably he thought he did or he wouldn’t have opined on the matter.

That opinion was issued in 1969. Three years later, a second visit to Disney was made, this time by Peter Byrne:
Greg Long writes (TMoB, p. 188), “Byrne cited his trip to Walt Disney studios in 1972, where Disney's chief of animation and four assistants viewed Patterson's footage and praised it as a beautiful piece of work although, they said, it must have been shot in a studio. When Byrne told them it had been shot in the woods of Northern California, 'They shook their heads and walked away.'””
[source: Daegling, Bigfoot Exposed. 150, n.25, wrote: "Peter Byrne, in an e-mail to the author September 8, 2002, indicates that he personally talked to the Disney people. . . ."]

Please explain - in detail – what expertise a marketing executive turned agent and an animator could provide regarding whether or not a major motion picture studio and its team of special effects people could "duplicate" the PGF.
1. At Universal, we don’t know for sure yet that Dale Sheets was just “a marketing executive turned agent.” And it wasn’t just his opinion, it was that of “unnamed technicians in the special effects department.”

2. At Disney, we don’t know for sure yet that Peterson was “just an animator”; Wikipedia cites a source who says he was an executive. And it wasn’t just his opinion, it was that (three years later) of “Disney's chief of animation and four assistants.”

So there’s your expertise.
 
Byrne cited his trip to Walt Disney studios in 1972, where Disney's chief of animation and four assistants viewed Patterson's footage and praised it as a beautiful piece of work although, they said, it must have been shot in a studio. When Byrne told them it had been shot in the woods of Northern California, 'They shook their heads and walked away.'
Disney people thought the PGF was shot in a studio. So they were unable to determine that it was shot in a mountain forest creekbed. Yes, let's pay attention to what these guys have to say because they are obviously critical observers who know what they are looking at.

What are you supposed to do with the opinions of people who think it was filmed inside a studio?
 
There is an ignore function Roger - go to the" user cp" tab at the top of the page. I use it in the instant case.

We know logically someone was in the bigfoot suit. So who is it? There isn't even another candidate. Bob says he was in the suit. Witnesses saw it in the back of the car. This is all a court would need. There is no contradictory testimony. Was it five miles or eleven on that last bit of drive 50 years ago, Bob? Who cares. Putting on a suit is something you remember a lot better than how far the last bit of road was.

A number of skeptics have been overly cautious about this and I understand why, because of the relentless nit-picking by 'footers.

Regardless, there is no bigfoot and someone walked in the suit. You don't have to go ask someone who has expertise in suits or effects. I saw Star Wars so I can't say a movie like it cannot be made no matter how much experience I have in special effects. We don't have space ship fighter pilots and there is no death star. Ergo special effects.
 
First of all, you took it upon yourself to reply to my line of commenting, lol. Did you forget that? You knew what I was talking about, and it wasn't Bob. H, and yet you replied, so I'm not sure why you're now claiming that I'm diverting away from the topic.

A thread kind of works like this: people post things, you can either choose to reply, or you can choose not to. You chose to reply, Roger.
You’re right. I should have been more alert.
On the subject of the PGF, it should definitely be clear to anyone in their 70s that it's a hoax, imho.
That’s an improvement over implying that no one can honestly believe in it. You’re on the right path.
So, my sincerity in my opinion is bothering you?
No, it was your imputation that those who differ from you are insincere.
That seems to be a weird trend among Bigfoot-believers, and it really does baffle me.
As I mentioned near the start of my commenting here a few days ago, I’m not really a “Bigfoot believer,” in the sense of thinking it’s a natural animal. If it “exists,” it’s something supernatural.
The "ignore" button is pretty evident, it's right there when you click my name, and yet you've not pressed it, so I think it's time to stop throwing your toys out of the pram, Roger.
My browser is eight years old and doesn’t display everything that’s on screen. I’ll try hovering around your name and see if I find anything that turns on the finger icon.
Btw, on the subject of derailing, do you remember bringing up the Zapruder film? That film that literally cannot be compared to the PGF in any way other than it being a film?.
As I said, they are both “evidence” of a sort. That is what Greg Long denied and I disputed. So the PGF certainly can be compared to the Zapruder film on that basis.

At a minimum, the evidence in the PGF sets a bar that PGF-hoax claimants like Heironimus and Morris must meet to win acceptance of their claims. Since their Cow Camp re-creation attempt was so bad they (i.e., Morris) won’t release it, their claims can be disregarded.

Here’s a hypothetical: If the PGF depicted Patty doing something humanly impossible, like climbing a too-steep slope, or snapping a too-thick (for humans) limb, or running at a too-fast-for--mime-in-a-costume speed, or taking-too-long-for-humans steps, that would be evidence of Patty’s reality (at that moment, anyway).

Well, I think some of the features and motions of Patty come close to being out of the human range. Because of that, Patterson’s character doesn’t count directly against them, except in raising the likelihood of some sort of fakery being involved. But if disbelievers can’t match his fakery—not remotely, after decades—that reduces the likelihood of fakery.

BTW, a good reply to the complaint you made that the PGF wasn’t validated by third-party viewers at the scene like the Zapruder film, is that neither are surveillance videos, or videos of police misbehavior by bystanders, and yet they are accepted as authentic regardless.

Even if the owner of the surveillance camera, or the bystander with a camera, is of bad character, it doesn’t affect the authenticity of the video.

However, after answering this and the next few comments on the authenticity of the PGF, I’m going to stop doing so. I’m aware that there are skeptical rejoinders to what I’ve said above, but I won’t answer them when they are posted. I want to get back to Heironimus.
 
Well, I can see that you were swayed, but what I find odd is that you were admittedly swayed by some of the least qualified FX people who've commented on it.
I explained in my reply to Rockint, a couple of comments upthread, that they were qualified,
Since then, many more guys have made their opinions known, but you don't listen to their opinions.

So yeah, I can see that you've been swayed, my question is why? And why choose to only listen to people who support it, despite being less qualified in their field of FX than others who have commented on it and declared it a fake?
I explained my reasons for being unswayed by Hollywood debunkers halfway through my comment-reply to you #2997, one page upthread. It included a reference to a 20-page attack on your supposedly more qualified experts, on Relict Hominoid Inquiry, by “Barry Keith.” I’d give you a link to it but I’m not at the 50-post level yet. Google for “Relict Hominoid Inquiry” “Barry Keith” and you’ll get the link. I just tested it; it’s the second item.
------
 
I'm pretty sure I once read an article explaining why these guys weren't qualified to bother giving their FX opinion on the PGF, and since they claimed it'd be hard to replicate, it's obvious that they were shockingly uneducated in that particular field of expertise after all.

So replication has been accomplished! Show me where.
 
We don't know what these various "Hollywood people" were able to see when they were shown the film. We don't know the quality of the copy they were shown or how much time they could or would view it critically.

Nobody back in those days seems to mention the various costume malfunctions that we can see now and watch a thousand times if we want. Maybe they never noticed the material as it subducts beneath the butt or the brief folding at the thigh.

These and other things are discussed now because we can see them and they are pointed out to us by others. There doesn't seem to be records of that kind of critical observation going on in the old days. Maybe it first required an advance in technology and convenience which allowed many different people to be able to watch it over and over again at their leisure. Prior to VCRs people had no way to watch something repeatedly and instead had to wait to see it on TV broadcast. Then when it could be recorded on VHS it would be very low quality and costume flaws would be blurred.

More recent attempts at Bigfoot film hoaxing tend to be discounted fairly quickly because we are viewing it on modern technology and we can watch it over and over again. We know there are hundreds of fake Bigfoot videos on YouTube that are immediately declared hoaxes because we can see details with modern technology. Imagine those same moving images coming out in 1967 and shown only a few times on TV. I think that many would have been accepted as authentic. There could have been 50 different "PGFs" if people had been motivated and created them.

Remember that awful and hilarious Marx film of the limpy Bigfoot. It was accepted only until it was discovered to have been filmed in a different location than Marx had said. It was not debunked based on the costume itself or the behavior of the actor. IOW, the film subject itself was acceptable to the believers. Same thing happened with Meldrum and the Snow Walker. He declared it authentic right up until he was told that it was a hoax. He found nothing about the filmed subject that suggested a fake to him. Both of those required "extra information" outside of the films themselves in order to become universally declared as hoaxes by all.
 
I thought you were going to stop?

Whyn't you take your pattysuit apologetics to the pattysuit thread?
 
As I mentioned near the start of my commenting here a few days ago, I’m not really a “Bigfoot believer,” in the sense of thinking it’s a natural animal. If it “exists,” it’s something supernatural.
Then if the PGF is authentic it shows a supernatural animal. But there doesn't appear to be anything supernatural about Patty even if I imagine her to be real. Neither the body nor the behavior appears to be supernatural.


Here’s a hypothetical: If the PGF depicted Patty doing something humanly impossible, like climbing a too-steep slope, or snapping a too-thick (for humans) limb, or running at a too-fast-for--mime-in-a-costume speed, or taking-too-long-for-humans steps, that would be evidence of Patty’s reality (at that moment, anyway).
IMO Patty's hands are not functional. Simply picking up a stick or rock was not possible with that costume. So for me, she would not have had to do something superhuman as she could not have even done a human thing like using the hands.

But if disbelievers can’t match his fakery—not remotely, after decades—that reduces the likelihood of fakery.
We don't know if this idea is valid because people don't try to replicate costumes and then present the result for critical review. We need to test a control sample first. A start might be to see if a Gemora gorilla costume can be replicated in form and for the behavior of the guy inside. You not only have to replicate the look but you also have to replicate Gemora's moves when he's wearing it. But look, the analysis is still going to be subjective. What happens if 10% of the analysts say that you did not properly replicate the Gemora gorilla? Is it then declared a failed replication? Does the failure increase the chances that it's a real gorilla in Gemora's films rather than him in a costume?
 
Originally Posted by Roger Knights
Less than 10% of Bigfoot researchers in the nation live within easy enough driving distance of Yakima
lol. But they will travel order of magnitude more to a silly bigfoot conference, or to Area X for a pretend week-end of encounters.
You omitted the last part of the sentence you quoted, “. . . to be able to make regular weekend trips there.” They couldn’t have got to the bottom of the Heironimus story in just one or two visits there.

And Bigfooters who go to conferences expect to get something out of them. OTOH, they had no reason to check out Yakima for “the principles” [sic] in the hoax. There were no rumors coming out of Yakima about a hoax, partly because Heironimus didn’t go public about it, so why would anyone venture there to check them out? And, as I wrote in comment 2977, replying to you, even if they had gone there:
First, what good would it have done for them to meet Bob Heironimus. He didn’t want his story spread around—that’s what he told Hammermeister and Bohannon. And he said in an interview that he promised Patterson especially not to tell “the media,” which presumably an interviewer who might file an article with a Bigfoot newsletter would be. Bob Heironimus was only likely to share his tale with friendly questioners, like Jim Gosney.

Second, what good would it have done to “ask around if people know about it.” That’s just hearsay. . . . . .
Furthermore, Heironimus didn’t release his name until 2004, and wouldn’t give any details of his activity to inquirers like Long. (TMoB, ch. 9, 146–66). I also said in that comment:
Bigfoot researchers probably presumed that the hoax claimant was a phony.
And they would have been correct, because Heironimus’s claims don’t stand up to criticism. (See the reference I gave to “Herroneous vs. Herroneous” for a few criticisms (43), in my reply to you #2984.)
In the post-telephone age distance is irrelevant.
Well, long-distance calling wasn’t cheap for maybe 30 years after 1967.
Too bad you didn’t have Greg Long’s ear back in the day, when he was making frequent weekend trips to Yakima from about 1998 to 2003. You could have saved him a lot of time and gas money. He thought visits were needed.
We know you don't believe in bigfoot yourself. Because you spend your time doing this instead of anything that would result in finding a bigfoot.
I’m not here to merely opine. I’ve done plenty of investigating in Yakima and elswhere, using low-cost telephone calls. I’ve talked to lots of suit witnesses there, and I posted my findings on BFF 1.0 from about 2004 through 2008. (I subsequently did more research, both in Yakima and Bluff Creek, among other places, and have some interesting findings to discuss with Kitakaze.) My sig line then was a quote from Sir William Gull: “Savages and fools believe; wise men investigate.”
We know you like the game. The Bigfoot Live Action Alternate Reality Game. Because we see you playing that game instead.
No, I dislike that game. In answer to your earlier question about my research specialty, I posted this paragraph:
My research specialty is a critique of Heironimus and associates. The document I damaged (see below) is about his claims. My POV on the validity of Bigfoot is on the fence. . . .I think that BF can't be "real" unless there's a joker in the pack (of reality)--which I already believe, based on three ESP experiences I had a long time ago. So BF could be a tulpa or something of that nature.
But I haven’t been playing “that alternate reality game” here—i.e., I’m not arguing for it. I’ve only cited it to dissociate myself from “Bigfoot believers” and to justify why I’m not out in the field. That’s all, and there’s no “game” (phoniness) involved. What I want to do is to further the investigation of Heironimus’s claims, primarily through exchanges with Kitakaze.
We are supposed to convince you of something you already know: there is no bigfoot. But at least I'll make it clear that most of us know you don't believe what you just wrote about researchers being incapable of driving to Yakima. Creating plausible deniability is a big part of the game.
The boldfaced portion is a strawman. What I wrote was:
Less than 10% of Bigfoot researchers in the nation live within easy enough driving distance of Yakima to able to make regular weekend trips there . . . .

Researchers were not really avoiding the most important work to do surrounding the principles to a hoax. They just could not afford to drive there. Even a rich boy like Green who drove internationally, or flew to so many different places much further. He could afford to do that instead.
What I said above answers that paragraph. Bigfooters and everyone else were unaware of hoax claims from Yakima; if they had checked them out, they’d only have got rumors—Heironimus and his friends wouldn’t talk to them; If Heironimus had talked, his claims wouldn’t have been worth bothering to visit for, because they were so flimsy; and (as I said in comment #2984) Bigfooters had good reasons to presume any hoax claims were phony.

As I wrote in another comment to you, it wasn’t for not checking out hoax claims that Greg Long was upset at Bigfoot researchers, but for not checking out Patterson’s character. But (as I also said in a prior comment) Bigfooters like Green were aware that it was shady, in general terms, and they saw no need to go into detail about it, because they thought the film was unfakable. (And so far they’ve been right—no one has come close to doing a credible fake like it.)
 
I know I've said this before, but it seems a good time to say it again, considering there is nothing new being added to these discussions anyway..

It wouldn't be any easier to make a good copy of a bad costume, that it would be to make a good copy of a good one..

Actually I think it would be harder...


Patty is not a good costume..
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
I'm basically still trying to wrap my head around how the Zapruder film is anything akin to the PGF, and how on earth the PGF could ever be deemed "better evidence," that's simply mind-numbing in its oddness. Talk about disingenuous.
There you go again with the implication that your opponent is being dishonest. Such behavior justifies you’re being on Ignore, which I’ll do when I can find the button.

As for “how on earth the PGF could ever be deemed "’better evidence,’" I explained it to you, and you dishonestly pretended not to know:
In one way the PGF is better evidence, because its original (all Kodachrome II originals can be identified as such, distinct from copies ) was examined in various photo labs when Patterson was copying it and found not to have been spliced (or shortened, I presume). That eliminates the possibility of certain sorts of darkroom monkey business. OTOH, there is some suspicion that the Zapruder film was altered by having frames removed when it was in the possession of Life magazine.
Talk about “disingenuous!
 
Rockint said:
Things are a little different here than what people found on the old BFF.
Fact-like fiction and pronouncements of firmly held but non-factual beliefs will not cut it here.
Tell it to Alaska Bush Pilot and Gilbert Syndrome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom