• 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.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diogenes said:
It's obvious you have no idea what I'm talking about .. The blue line was to bring your attention to the shape of shoulder pads just above the blue line ..

Blue lines and red circles are essential to the PGF debate ...

Before you start making claims about how real muscles look, you should at least take a look at ' Anatomy ' over at Wiki ..

You clearly have nothing to bring to the table but your ill informed opinion ..

Good by Luminous ..
Click to expand...

Don't forget, this may be an uncatalogued species. If that's the case, the muscles may differ in shape. They are all there, but in the example of the calf, they may be larger or even differently shaped. I have overdeveloped calf muscles from bike riding as a teen, and their shape is almost identical (save size) to patty's.

I did bring something to the table, pics of the muscle groups. I even tried to post an animation that clearly reveals the flex and jiggle, but it said it was too large. (I could e-mail it to you, but what good will it do? You lack the ability to change your mind.) What have you brought to the table? Oh yeah, an ill informed opinion or two. Otherwise squat.

Bye to you, are you leaving or something?
 
Luminous said:
Don't forget, this may be an uncatalogued species. If that's the case, the muscles may differ in shape. They are all there, but in the example of the calf, they may be larger or even differently shaped. I have overdeveloped calf muscles from bike riding as a teen, and their shape is almost identical (save size) to patty's.
Click to expand...
So you starting to think piloerection was pretty desperate, too? Oh well, you always have the classic 'undocumented species' bit to pull out when things about Patty don't fit in with nature.
Luminous said:
I did bring something to the table, pics of the muscle groups.
Click to expand...
How was that established? I just saw a Patty still with your wish list beneath it.
Luminous said:
What have you brought to the table? Oh yeah, an ill informed opinion or two. Otherwise squat.
Click to expand...
Hahaha... you're funny. Big house cat and piloerection wouldn't be two very ill-informed opinions, right?
Luminous said:
Bye to you, are you leaving or something?
Click to expand...
He put you on ignore. Most people here don't do drama queen like you. BTW, when's the next Streisand goodbye?:dqueen
 
Last edited:
RayG said:
I used to be a big proponent of the film because I thought I saw a calf muscle that appeared to flex. But rubber boots also 'flex', so I revised my position to that of an absolute fence-sitter. I see nothing in the film that absolutely convinces me it's a real critter, nor do I see anything that absolutely convinces me it's a suit.
Click to expand...

Diogenes said:
Does your Achilles tendon run up the side of your leg?
Click to expand...

The reason why rubber hip waders get referenced is because Heironimus said that Patterson used them inside the costume legs. You can see similarities to the way that the thick rubber boots fold and the appearance of the Patty "calf muscle". You can also see a coincidence of the top of the waders and the location of the bunching "hernia" at the upper thigh.

The first (small) photo shows waders that are more similar to circa-1967 design...
6bae75fe.jpg
3bc75aec.jpg


Note how the shape and orientation of the calf muscle resembles rubber boot folding. Look closely at the odd crease(s) near the front of the calf (shin)...
cf7f9a16.jpg


Note the action at the upper right thigh as Patty steps. The location is about where hip waders might stop...
191ecf07.gif
 
Luminous said:
I have more stills where I can point out the muscle groups, but nothing consecutive that I could make an animated gif from. Although I don't agree with his ideas, M.K. Davis does have the stills and the ability to show exactly what I'm talking about. I don't know the man, and because of my stance on his beliefs, I doubt he would want to help me out here. Personally, I think the stills clearly show the musculature. That was my point. I only mentioned flex and jiggle in response to some one claiming it was a suit. I've seen this flex and jiggle that I refer to, and unless BH wore tight spandex and had humongous quads, there's no way cloth and fake fur could flex and jiggle like that. And Patterson didn't have the means or the skill to include muscle shaped gel pads to make it look realistic.
Click to expand...

The stills may show what appears to be musculature. SO does the statue of David. Does that mean the statue is alive, and has actual muscles? That's why I ask for shots of the same muscle group in different positions; differing states of contraction/expansion. Show me, exactly, what you're talking about instead of just vague sayings of "It's there, I've seen it".

You're asking me the believe that Patterson was the greatest cosume maker in all of Hollywood during his day. Everyone knows that's not true.
Click to expand...

You have the wrong person. I haven't asked you to believe anything. Please don't project the argument you want to have onto me. I've made no counterclaim to you...I've simply asked you to support yours.

Just look at the creature's back and then look at a gorilla's back. Are you saying Patterson used foam padding to create the spine line and the clear latissiumus dorsi muscles? And what about the clear deltoids, are you saying they were simply football pads? Of course you have the clearly defined gluteus maximus muscles, those are just pillows, right? I have gastrocnemius and soleus muscles shaped like Patty's, but no where near as large or as perfectly formed. But they are clearly seen. Unless you're going to play "blind," like the others, there is no other choice but to admit that they are there.
Click to expand...

Actually, the gluts seem to be lacking the dimples that appear on the sides at certain stages of contraction, and in any case we've seen period suits that show the same level of detail on the glut muscles. That's incolcusive, either way.

The deltoids, lats, and spine line, as seen in stills, can also be duplicated in period suits (at least for a single, still positon, such as standing with both arms down at the sides, such as the stills you showed). Yes, the shots you presented could be easily duplicated with "padding and pillows". Show some clear shots of the back with the arms extended, as in walking, so we can see how they look when contracted. Heck, even the foam play "muscle suits" you can buy for children these days would show this level of detail, in a low-resolution film image and without seeing them in any position except still. The detail you claim to clearly see (beyond the large, general shape) is what I'd like you to point out. Heck, show some anatomy diagrams and compare/contrast the pictures, show us how the details match up. All I'm asking, and all I have asked, is that ytou support your case. Remember, you are the one saying these can only be real muscles, they cannot be padding, or folds of a costume, or whatever else might be remotely possible. You have to exclude all other reasonable possibilities to prove your case...so far, you have not done that.

Admitting that you see them will make you more honest than the rest. As to how to explain them, that's a different story. To you this is nothing more than cloth and padding. To me, this is far too anatomically correct to dismiss as mere fakery. Patterson didn't have the ability to make a suit as elaborate as this.
Click to expand...

Again, I've stated nothing about what I believe, you're engaging in a logical fallacy called a strawman. I'm simply asking you to show, clearly and in detail, why these must be muscles and cannot be anything else. So far, I've seen nothing to rule out the combination of padding and poor image quality; but I'm not claiming that's what it is, definatively. I'm asking you to show me why it has to be muscles, and can't be anything else.

As for the flex and jiggle, you'll have to wait until I have a zoomed in and moving version to show you. But I saw it plain as day. If I ever get footage of this, I will post it for you.
Click to expand...

Mpore than just flex and jiggle, though. Even padding and suit fabric can flex and jiggle. We need to see flex and jiggle that mimics that of actual musculature and other anatomical structures. That's what I want to see.
 
Just another quick followup. William's moving image is a perfect example of why I ask for moving footage. Look closely at the glut muscles, the ones you claim are so well-defined, Luminous. They barely move at all while Patty walks. This does not seem to mimic the action of real muscles.
 
Luminous said:
Absolutely Sweaty,

PM me everything you have. I'm serious about publishing these tactics for all to see. I would like to do everything I can to discourage serious researchers from wasting their time communicating with such lawless and unprincipled individuals. Truthfully, I'd like to know where the real skeptics are at, because I enjoy talking with them. There was one guy here who seemed to be mature enough to fit the bill. If I could only remember his handle...

Anyway, send me what you got...

Sincerely,

Luminous
Click to expand...

I'll do that, Luminous. :)
It may take me a day or two, though.

I'll also see if I can go back and dig up a few from the BFF...from debates I had there.
There are some of the best examples of skeptic's "debating" tactics there, that you could ever ask for.
Those might take me some time to find...but it'll be worth it!
 
Huntsman said:
Just another quick followup. William's moving image is a perfect example of why I ask for moving footage. Look closely at the glut muscles, the ones you claim are so well-defined, Luminous. They barely move at all while Patty walks. This does not seem to mimic the action of real muscles.
Click to expand...

As has been noted time and again;

..part the upper thigh appears to subduct into that fur diaper ..

totally unnatural …

That little .gif also shows how the upper arm moves independently of the shoulder ..

191ecf07.gif
 
...and when the torso swings towards the camera the breasts don't budge - even with a stomp of the right foot. Totally unnatural.
 
SweatyYeti said:
I'll do that, Luminous. :)
It may take me a day or two, though.

I'll also see if I can go back and dig up a few from the BFF...from debates I had there.
There are some of the best examples of skeptic's "debating" tactics there, that you could ever ask for.
Those might take me some time to find...but it'll be worth it!
Click to expand...
Sweaty and Lummo compare notes:

S: "Yo, and then I dropped a 'if the fingers bend, you must pretend' on 'em and it was like BAM!"

L: "Oh SNAP! You da' shizzle fizzle, Sweat. Did you see me, though? I had a picture! There was like words under it, dog!"

S: "Word."

L: "Wooord."

evil_and_minime.jpg


Will bigfoot denial and supression ever be the same again?:D
 
Sweaty, you really thought all of the proposed explanations were ridiculous? Even the change of angle demo? I thought it was terrific, myself.

What did you think when we spotted you the fact that the fingers do bend?

As far as I am concerned, I was asked to come up with alternatives to Patty's fingers actually bending, and I/we made an honest effort to do so.

If you thought they were ridiculous, that's actually fine with me.

I think bigfoot is a bit ridiculous, but it's rarely how I argue the subject.
 
Luminous/Sweaty, you are constantly complaining about skeptics’ tactics. What about your dodging of questions?

I showed images of costumes that predated PGF. Costumes with the same features interpreted as muscles in Patty.

You then asked me about evidence of their age (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2741742&postcount=5513)
Before 67? I'd like to see some proof of that.
Click to expand...

And stated
If Patty is a costume as you say, then Patterson's skills far exceeded the best of his day. Unlikely. Not to mention the cost of building such a suit was far out of his financial reach.
Click to expand...

At http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2741835&postcount=5518 I pointed towards the requested evidence for the costume’s age. I also showed an image of a suit with muscles that are more defined than Patty’s.

And, in regard to the rest of your questions, I wrote:

You say costumes like that are no match for Patty´s muscles. Have you seen those costumes in action? Can you prove such claim? Please expose your arguments.

Have I said Patterson built the Patty suit? Couldn't he have bought, rented or modified a costume? How much skills would one need to increase an arm's lenght?

You said building such costume would be beyond P&G financial reach. What are the evidence you have to back such claim? Do you know how much it would cost to build, buy or rent one back then?
Click to expand...

Your reply, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2742012&postcount=5529
You asked, again, for proof of the costume’s age. However, you ignored my questions. You try to dodge the questions and an evasion attempt, asking me how much such a costume would cost. Something that you, the person who claimed it would be too expensive for P&G should be able to know. You try to shift the burden of proof…

At http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2742077&postcount=5535
I provided the requested evidence on the costume’s age. On the next post, RayG also answers your request. I also ask you to stop dodging the questions.

Your reply at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2742189&postcount=5539
Was
Cost. Didn't I mention the cost of making the suit? And the answer is? (Talk about dodging questions...)
Click to expand...
Another dodge and evasion attempt!

Here’s my reply:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2742264&postcount=5542
The exact costs? I don't know. But any Star Trek fan will tell you, despite what some footers claimed, Star Trek was a low-budget TV show (this can be confirmed by some googling - try start trek series budget). So, the gorn -as well as the mugato- suits must have been pretty cheap and low-tech.

Bottomline: this line of investigation will not provide evidence that such a costume would be beyond P&G budget.

Now, could you please expose the arguments that back your point that a Patty costume would be too expensive for P&G? Note that they could have built, bought or rented such a suit.
Click to expand...

I assume your (less than satisfactory) answer came at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2742295&postcount=5543.
It was nothing but an overblown and processed PGF frame plus the names of muscles you claim to be able to see, a new claim (skin can be seen underneath thr hairs) and the old claim that P&G could not have made it. The questions “Couldn't P&G have bought, rented or modified a costume?” was not touched. You are only making claims based on nothing but your perception. And yet, you keep making ad homs against skeptics. Have you ever noticed ad homs and personal perceptions are no substitute for reliable evidence?

At http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2743757&postcount=5555
I presented more pics of costumes that show details identical to those seen in Patty. I consider some to be actually better. And again, I state that there’s no reason to deny the possibility that P&G may have bought, rented or modified a gorilla suit. This was again ignored in your reply at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2744510&postcount=5559
Not one of them contain all the muscle groups that we see on Patty. They can't even hold a candle to her.
Click to expand...
This is not a real argument. This is no evidence. This is nothing but your perceptions. Perceptions that may be –actually are- as influenced by personal bias than mines or anyone else. Some people see Jesus, I see a stain. You see a real, living animal with bulging muscles, I see a guy on a gorilla suit. How can you be so sure your interpretation is better than mine?
You are “guilty” of the very same “sins” you attribute to skeptics at post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2745229&postcount=5570
But you prefer to remain ignorant rather than admit you could be wrong. You value being right in your own eyes over knowing the truth.
Click to expand...
Ad homs, logical fallacies, evasions, arrogance…
Who’s using the “I don’t see it” tactic?

Where is the reliable evidence for bigfeet being real animals?
 
No, no, no!

We are blind!

We can't see anything, and we never discuss muscle movement on Patty.

We can't see it!

This despite that fact that the board has many threads where we discuss all things Patty in minute and agonizing detail...

Luminous, since it must now be clear to you that we actually do see what you are talking about and we actually do discuss it, and have discussed it many times at length already, care to retract any claims?
 
LTC8K6:

You've got it!

Bigfoot is psychic! He selectively blocks perception of his existence from those who doubt! ANd when he calls down the mothership, and all those who believe in him drink the magic space koolaid to fly up to the mothership, us doubting skeptics will be left behind and miss out on seeing Utopia on Planet X!

It all makes sense now...
 
LAL said:
They're scarce, wide ranging and largely nocturnal. Peter Byrne hunted in the jungles of Sumatra. He told me the forests of the PNW are far denser; you can't see through them.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense that Bigfoot is nocturnal. There are no nocturnal great apes, and the few primates that are have very big eyes. When you are a nocturnal biped in dense forests with your eyes 8 feet above the ground, you are going to need detailed vision. You have to avoid busting your toes on solid obstacles, and at the same time avoid poking your eyes out on branches and twigs. They are supposed to hunt animals at night and also find plant foods? They have good nocturnal vision for motion detection, rapid visual tracking and even color? That sure is a bizarre creature unlike any other. I wonder what a range of primatologists would think about these proposals for an animal described as being hominoid or ape-like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom