Continuation - The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Resume]

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:

Talk about “disingenuous!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295766&page=36
This is the place.

 

[Roger Knights]

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..

I’ve corrected some errors, which furthers the discussion. And I’ve provided references to new (to some) information sources, such as my compilation of transcribed Heironimus interviews, my “Herroneous vs. Herroneous” article, and Barry Keith’s critique of the Hollywood FX crowd. (I agree though that arguing about the authenticity of the PGF is usually a rehash—which is why I wish I hadn’t taken the bait to do so.)

It wouldn't be any easier to make a good copy of a bad costume, than 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..

That doesn’t apply to making knock-offs of expensive clothing though, does it? it’s harder to make copies of them. it’s easier to copy the cheap stuff.

Morris makes gorilla suits in a huge price range, from three to five digits. If it would be easier to copy his expensive suits than his cheaper ones, he’d be out of business.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

But I haven’t been playing “that alternate reality game” here—i.e., I’m not arguing for it.

That's the definition. Denying it is a game.

Most BLAARGers deny they are bigfoot proponents while very loudly promoting bigfoot. They claim to be fence-sitters just like you.

But our eyes are working just fine seeing the position that bigfoot is supernatural.

I realize it is an effort at being subtle here. Amassing this mountain of non-evidence against Bob Heironimus, the excruciating minutea.

Denying what we are doing while in the middle of doing it is the whole point. "I'm not saying any of this non-evidence promotes bigfoot." Well we hear that as a rule from proponents.

 

[William Parcher]

That doesn’t apply to making knock-offs of expensive clothing though, does it? it’s harder to make copies of them. it’s easier to copy the cheap stuff.

I'm not so sure that that is accurate in itself or applicable to the topic of the Patty costume. Clothing counterfeiters will have the original item in hand to examine. But even still they may only superficially replicate the form and stitching. The purchaser of a fake Armani suit may have never worn an authentic one nor examined one in great detail throughout. This might be because they cannot afford a real one.

A cheap suit might require the same effort to replicate because replication would involve minute details that aren't even visible when the suit is being worn. I'm talking about stuff like stitching thread material, stitch length, stitch knot shape and knot tightness, etc.

Morris makes gorilla suits in a huge price range, from three to five digits. If it would be easier to copy his expensive suits than his cheaper ones, he’d be out of business.

Are you speculating that Morris' expensive gorilla costumes are what keeps him in business? What about the Halloween costumes he sells? Isn't that the great bulk of his sales?

It may be that nobody really replicates any of his gorilla costumes because it's easy to create your own. His most expensive ones don't really look like real gorillas anyway. They look like gorilla costumes.

Anyway, the arguments about inabilities to replicate Patty doesn't go very far around here.

 

[Vortigern99]

So replication has been accomplished! Show me where.

There are hundreds of photographically convincing ape suits in dozens of films from the 1900s to the present day. The 1930s MGM ape suits for their Tarzan series had musculature and mechanical hands and jaws -- capable of more advanced movement than any activity we see Patty perform. The 1960s hominid suits and masks for 2001:ASO are coeval with the PGF, with convincing fur and skin details beyond anything required for the distant, grainy, blurry PG figure.

Pictures and films of these suits are abundant on teh intertoobz.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....

That doesn’t apply to making knock-offs of expensive clothing though, does it? it’s harder to make copies of them. it’s easier to copy the cheap stuff.

Morris makes gorilla suits in a huge price range, from three to five digits. If it would be easier to copy his expensive suits than his cheaper ones, he’d be out of business.

Nobody bothers to copy the cheap stuff.. Why would they?


There is no evidence that the Patty suit includes more than random pieces of a Morris suit, if any pieces at all ..

The point, was that it would be hard if not impossible, to copy the flaws in the Patty suit, to the point where the believers would say " Ah! By golly you've done it ! "

Not to mention, that another pair of Gemora gorilla pants would be hard to come by...

Youve got to be in total denial, to not see that those two butts came from the same boutique..

 

[Vortigern99]

Ye Olde Bigfoote Butte Boutique^R

 

[Roger Knights]

Vortigern99: For a rebuttal, google "Relict Hominoid Inquiry" "Barry Keith"

 

[Roger Knights]

The point, was that it would be hard if not impossible, to copy the flaws in the Patty suit, to the point where the believers would say " Ah! By golly you've done it ! "

Skeptics wouldn't have to replicate the flaws in the Patty suit. That's a strawman. I doubt that 5% of Bigfooters have ever demanded that every feature be reproduced. The mainstream request has been, implicitly, for a reasonable facsimile, or even for anything that lacks a phony, suit-like quality. Here's what I wrote, a day or two ago (or maybe today):

The PGF is nevertheless evidence that, at a minimum, can be used as a standard that re-creations must match—not perfectly, of course, but well enough.

 

[Roger Knights]

Originally Posted by Roger Knights
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.

What I meant was this, in which I wasn’t explicit enough to say that it wasn’t spectral while here:

an interdimensional visitor that is only real here briefly.

:
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, mayhap, you’re more reasonable than most disbelievers. For more emotionally committed disbelievers, use of the hands could be explained away, especially if nothing very complex was involved.

:
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?

I like the idea of “baby steps” when it comes to replication. I suggested it a few times on BFF and, I think, in a draft article I wrote. It’s asking too much of disbelievers to do the whole job in one jump. But replicating a Gemora suit and movies using such a suit is a diversion from replicating Patty. Just replicate a leg with hamstrings, a bulging, shapely calf just before touchdown, toes that rise just before touchdown (to avoid getting stubbed, maybe), a mobile kneecap (per Glickman), etc. Or do the same with an arm and hand; or a torso; or a head.

Or just replicate the walk in a cheap rental gorilla suit. That ought to be easy, right? Greg Long says he can do it and anybody can do it (TMoB, p. 377). Show us (and not in a still photo—that’s easy). It doesn’t have to be shot with the same camera and film and lighting—that’s just an excuse. A replicated walk would have certain gross features similar, such as degree of shank lift, a vertical foot before leg lift, 20% of the time with both feet grounded (vs. 2% for humans), smoothness, traversal of outdoor ground (not an artificially smooth surface, IOW), a lookback without breaking stride, etc. No one would demand replication of Patty’s knock-kneed weird leg positions. No one would demand that the re-enactor cut a few inches off his legs to match leg-to-torso Patty’s proportions.

As for subjective evaluation, the replication could be graded on one or two dozen criteria; I posted on BFF 1.0 a “Patty-Walk Checklist” a guideline for judges that did just that. I’ve got it in a file on my computer, but I want to get away from arguing about the authenticity of the PGF, so I’ll forgo posting it.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Youve got to be in total denial, to not see that those two butts came from the same boutique..

That was a nice match. Forgive me, but one is the Patty and the other is not Morris but another manufacturer, Gemora? He is in gorilla suit history, I see.

My guess is the craftsmanship, the sewing and pieces, are all pretty similar, in terms of pedestrian models.

 

[Roger Knights]

I'm not so sure that that is accurate in itself or applicable to the topic of the Patty costume. Clothing counterfeiters will have the original item in hand to examine.

But according to the know-it-all Hollywood FX crowd, they don’t need no stinkin’ master to copy from. They are masters of their craft and can create any look that’s desired that anyone else has achieved. (I’m imputing a bit here!)

A cheap suit might require the same effort to replicate because replication would involve minute details that aren't even visible when the suit is being worn. I'm talking about stuff like stitching thread material, stitch length, stitch knot shape and knot tightness, etc.

No Bigfooter would require such a detailed replication. Even on the gross-appearance level, they wouldn’t be sticklers. (Anyway, I wouldn’t be.) They realize, for instance, that it would be hard to match the head closely, and that the breasts would be expensive and tricky to do. (Morris didn’t even try to get something non-rigid.) They wouldn’t require that the thigh hernia be reproduced. Just get something that’s close. We’ll give you partial credit and back off some of our more extreme claims about its irreproducibility.

Are you speculating that Morris' expensive gorilla costumes are what keeps him in business? What about the Halloween costumes he sells? Isn't that the great bulk of his sales?

You got me! I shouldn’t have lapsed into hyperbole.

It may be that nobody really replicates any of his gorilla costumes because it's easy to create your own.

But there are probably tricks of the trade that would trip up an outsider. (For instance, Morris mentioned that shortening the arms or legs shouldn’t be done with a scissors or the plush will be lost (TMoB, p. 459)—apparently an X-Acto knife or razor knife is needed, and possibly cutting from the inside of the material.) Even having one of his suits dissected mightn’t reveal how it was constructed. A rank amateur would be lost.

Anyway, the idea of copying one of his expensive suits was something hypothetical, not a real-world money-making idea. I was disputing Skeptical Greg’s claim that it would be harder to copy a cheap suit than an expensive one. Maybe I just haven’t found the right rebuttal yet.

His most expensive ones don't really look like real gorillas anyway. They look like gorilla costumes.

Yep.

Anyway, the arguments about inabilities to replicate Patty doesn't go very far around here.

That’s a bug, not a feature.

 

[kitakaze]

(I subsequently did more research, both in Yakima and Bluff Creek, among other places, and have some interesting findings to discuss with Kitakaze.)

(snip)

What I want to do is to further the investigation of Heironimus’s claims, primarily through exchanges with Kitakaze.

I'm here. Fire away.

What you need in your volley is evidence that Bob Heironimus was hoaxing in the Yakima Valley and and to refute evidence that Roger Patterson was hoaxing in the Yakima Valley.

I suggest you review the "Hoaxing of Jerry Merritt" thread at the BFF.

 

[Resume]

Skeptics wouldn't have to replicate the flaws in the Patty suit. That's a strawman. I doubt that 5% of Bigfooters have ever demanded that every feature be reproduced.

See, here's the deal: You guys need to (re) produce a footie. So far, no one has, though many claim contact, some regular contact. No footie ever anywhere means no footie ever anywhere.

 

[The Shrike]

They don't need to produce a Bigfoot because bigfoots are supernatural.

 

[Roger Knights]

You’ve got to be in total denial, to not see that those two butts came from the same boutique. .

I have been troubled by about half a dozen of the phony-looking aspects of Patty that Skeptics have pointed out. Not all of them—many have been debunked, or are iffy / gray box material. OTOH, the authenticating features seem to me to be more numerous and equally convincing. So again I’m a bit on the fence, though leaning more one way than the other.

Each side thinks that its discrediting or authenticating evidence proves its case, and that those on the other side who won’t accept it are acting in bad faith. This tends to inflame debates.

I felt that I had little to contribute to the PGF authenticity debate. I knew little about:

• Costume-making
• Carny fakery
• Photography
• Software for manipulating images (e.g., “Poser”)
• Software for enhancing images, creating GIFs, etc.
• Primates

I also came to a bizarre conclusion: Maybe the Pranksters on Olympus had created an impossible creature with both discrediting and authenticating features, in order to amuse themselves by watching us mortals get into a tizzy arguing over them.

This is what Parcher’s sig line alludes to:

Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

This frustration was one of the reasons I stopped frequenting BFF or any Bigfoot site, 98% of the time. I felt the PGF-authenticity debate was irresolvable.

But four or five years ago, piqued by comments on BFF by Heironimus-champion Kitakaze, I became interested in expanding my “Herroneous vs. Herroneous” article so it included not just his self-contradictions, but his errors and implausibilities. In fits and starts I’ve created something pretty powerful. (Except that I corrupted the file early this month and will need to spend over a month rebuilding it.) That’s why I came here.

Unfortunately, I unthinkingly took the bait of a comment critiquing the PGF’s authenticity, and the discussion has gone off-topic, with my complicity to some extent. Resume asks:

I thought you were going to stop?

Whyn't you take your pattysuit apologetics to the pattysuit thread?

I said a while back that I wouldn’t answer new comments on the PGF’s authenticity, but only polish off ongoing exchanges. But I wasn’t able to live up to that. It’s hard to let the other side have the last word. Especially when one has a good reply. I’m going to try again to abstain, now that Kit’s back.

 

[Roger Knights]

I'm here. Fire away.
What you need in your volley is evidence that Bob Heironimus was hoaxing in the Yakima Valley and to refute evidence that Roger Patterson was hoaxing in the Yakima Valley.
I suggest you review the "Hoaxing of Jerry Merritt" thread at the BFF.

I’ll need until Monday to check out that thread and get my ducks in line about Yakima hoaxing, during which time I won’t visit here. Hopefully that’ll allow things to settle down.

(I concede that Roger was hoaxing in the Valley, and elsewhere, so that should make things easier.)

In the meantime, here’s a tiny correction. You wrote:

That's the same hoaxer who was collaborating with the managing editor of the Times-Standard Laurence "Scoop" Beal as admitted by his wife after he passed away.

In 1958 the Times hadn’t merged with the Standard; it was still only the Humboldt Times. See Know the Sasquatch / Bigfoot, page 49.

 

[kitakaze]

1958 is irrelevant. What is relevant in this context is 1967 and what was occurring both in Yakima and Bluff Creek at the time.

In August 1967 the BCM/Bluff Creek tracks that were used as the reasoning for P&G to come to Bluff Creek were created using Wallace stompers. A Scientologist level cult of Woods & Wildmen is required to deny what BCM was.

The creator of those stompers, Wallace, was both connected to Patterson and by the admission of the wife of the editor of the Times-Standard collaborating with Wallace to support his hoaxing.

That activity that brought massive attention to that part of the world. See the origin of the Bigfoot Days festival.

This...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tckhJ5b3ICE

This concession will make your progress in further discussion much easier for you...

(I concede that Roger was hoaxing in the Valley, and elsewhere, so that should make things easier.)

Only if you choose to take the path of tulpas and Buddhist mysticism is this going to become a mess.

 

[kitakaze]

Also, for the sake of context, let's keep this clear. You and I are two of a very small number of people who have had the level of obsession with this film to seek out the people behind it and their web of connections. You should not be a stranger to my particular pursuit and what I have gone on the record as finding.

You have already incorrectly placed Gary Record as being out of Yakima in 1967 when he was one of the main witnesses of the Idle Hour showing of the suit when Heironimus returned to Yakima from Bluff Creek.

You accept Patterson was hoaxing. I will not engage in discussion of Rorschach details or mystical mind construct backdoor bail-outs.

For the record - my position is this...

The PGF was a hoax primarily orchestrated by Roger Patterson and Al DeAtley. Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus were close friends who were manipulated and discarded from their involvement in the film and its primary purpose - to generate financial profit. Bob Gimlin sought through legal means and won his rights to the film after Roger's death. Only further greed in his part cost him those profits. Heironimus has a record of making the claim in Yakima from at least 1970. Only a very specific and serendipitous sequence of events in December 1998 made him come forward publicly.

 

[William Parcher]

an interdimensional visitor that is only real here briefly.

So if Bigfoot really does exist then Erik Beckjord was right. Would you agree?