Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

You know, this "let us stand united against them" is not a good line...

If somone here were proposing bigfeet are shapeshifting paranormal beings that travel through wormholes, would you support his/hers views? Would you avoid exposing the flaws and shortcomings in his/hers evidences and reasonings?

Someone is ehxibiting bad manners but you avoid telling him/her so because you are on the same side of the line? This is not propper behavior IMHO.

I know the threads are massive and few people would have the time and inclination to read them all (even tought they contain very good information on several aspects of the phenomena seen from both POVs). Among them you will find times when we, the skeptics, disagreeded with each other on a number of issues, behavior regarding the proponents included.

This does not makes us weak or strong. This makes us honest.

 

[William Parcher]

It may have been because Patty was a real bigfoot. But the effect may also have been created by using something like this.

That device/toy did not exist in 1967. The closest thing available was a device that allowed shopkeepers to grab a can off of a high shelf. It didn't have fingers. But it doesn't matter...

Or maybe because the suit P&G bought or rented had a mechanism like this?

This may have still been available in 1967, but again it doesn't matter. From what we can see in the PGF, Patterson did not employ either device or anything like them. If he did use something like these, then is was a total waste of effort and expense. Why? Because the film doesn't clearly show any animated action coming from the hands or mouth. Why would Patterson intentionally integrate articulated hands and/or mouth in a costume that he then intentionally filmed from such a great distance?

When we look at the available footage of the PGF, we don't see any obvious mouth or hand movement. This is even true for cropped enlargements. The closest thing is a proposed flexing of fingers when showing non-sequential still frames. If the fingers really do actively flex, then we ought to be able to see this in an animated .gif using real frames in their natural sequence. Instead we are shown cherry-picked stills that might not even be examples of genuine finger flexing. We are simply deprived of any visual evidence of a moving mouth. This does not prevent Lummi from claiming that Patty grimaces at Patterson & Gimlin. Yet, there is no visual evidence that the mouth does anything at all.

Look again at enhanced still frame created by MK Davis. Notice that the closed lips appear to have a thickness and cleft like a human. Notice that the nose is bulbous and protruding like a human. These are not facial traits of any great ape. Is it any wonder that Davis thinks Patty (Bigfoot) is human (genus Homo)? The mouth and nose look almost identical to circa-1967 artist recreations of what Neanderthal Man might have looked like.

There is no good reason to think that Patterson decided to use mechanically articulated hands or mouth. This is because we can't see it happening in the film itself.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...I haven't been posting here, lately, to 'discuss the evidence'....that's true.
I stated that openly. That doesn't make me a troll.....a troll is someone who disguises their motives for posting.
...snip...

Hmmm... An orc of course you are not, neither a goblin, gnome, cyclops or giant... Let me check The Creatures Guidebook Wikipedia (yes, not the best source of all, but in this case it'll do quite well):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Let me see...

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.

Interesting. Besides this it states that...

Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

Curious, indeed... Reminds me of a certain fixation on a poster's sig... What else the scroll says?

A troll's main goal is usually to arouse anger and frustration among the message board's other participants, and will write whatever it takes to acheive this end. One popular trolling strategy is the practice of Winning by Losing. While the victim is trying to put forward solid and convincing facts to prove his position, the troll's only goal is to infuriate its prey. The troll takes (what it knows to be) a badly flawed, wholly illogical argument, and then vigorously defends it while mocking and insulting its prey. The troll looks like a complete fool, but this is all part of the plan. The victim becomes noticeably angry by trying to repeatedly explain the flaws of the troll's argument. Provoking this anger was the troll's one and only goal from the very beginning.

Interesting!
If it looks like a troll, weights like a troll and trolls like a troll, then...

 

[Luminous]

You? No way. You couldn't agree with me even if you wanted to. You are incapable of it. You're a contrarian by nature. You take the opposite view even at the expense of the truth. The majority of those here do the same. There are apparently none who are like-minded who can stand with me, so that's a clear cue that I don't belong. This will only turn into gang lynching if I continue here alone. So I leave you to your self-deception as you try to convince yourself that it is me who is deceived. Enjoy your grand delusion.

Okay, I couldn't justify an apology for any others yet. But I can start with this one, seeing that you don't "fit the bill" of being a "contrarian" as I originally thought. Sorry for grouping you in with some who do seem to fit this description. And I admit, it was quite snippity sounding also. That was really unnecessary.

 

[LTC8K6]

Mr. Parcher, cut it out. The Borg Skeptic unit is supposed to agree on everything.

 

[LTC8K6]

When someone looks at a still frame which clearly shows a hand, with fingers, and says "I don't see any fingers"

Care to provide the context for that, Sweaty?

I might say "I don't see any fingers" regarding your 2 frame animation, meaning individual fingers.

Someone might also have meant that they see a glove, or a suit hand, and not real fingers.

 

[Luminous]

You're talking about a man who has knowledge you can't even pretend to equal. You talk down as if you're in some way superior to him, when in truth, you can't even hold a lamp to what he knows! Give honor to where honor is due. If you would do that, I would give proper respect to you.

Tube, I just want to apologize for coming across so judgmental and arrogant in this post. I really had no right rebuking you like that.

 

[Correa Neto]

WP, Patty's face strongly reminds me of this fellow:

Low-budget "Neanderthal-like giant" from Star Trek. Imagine the skin black or dark brown.

As for the ways that could be used to extend Patty's arm and have moving fingers, I think that tube got it right. Simplest method possible, and fits with what is known about Patterson increasing a costume's forearms.

 

[William Parcher]

I might say "I don't see any fingers" regarding your 2 frame animation, meaning individual fingers.

Someone might also have meant that they see a glove, or a suit hand, and not real fingers.

Hell, nobody can see Patty's fingers because they are not shown in the PGF. That ought not make much sense to a believer or a skeptic. MK Davis is able to show a defined bulbous nose with nasal flares and yet cannot show fingers. At many times, Patty's hands are pretty much perpendicular to the lens. Her fingers are certainly going to be larger than her nose and her toes. Yet we are never able to see any finger, in spite of being able to see a nose (in one enhanced frame) and individual toes (in one enhanced frame). Why do her fingers (which should be the size of jumbo bratwursts) always remain out of sight?

Why can Marlon Davis point out various scars, bullet holes, matted feces and a hair braid, etc., and yet not bring us any fingers? He tells us that Patty is probably human because she has a hair braid (with bone clasp) and carries a stick (where is this?) - yet he never mentions that she might be a hybrid with a dolphin because her hands always look like little cuppy flippers. WTF?

 

[William Parcher]

WP, Patty's face strongly reminds me of this fellow:

Low-budget "Neanderthal-like giant" from Star Trek. Imagine the skin black or dark brown.

I can't disagree, but her face mostly reminds me of Frank Frazetta's 1967 painting of artistic-license Neanderthaloids... used on the cover of Creepy Magazine. Nobody has ever really known what a Neanderthal nose looks like, but damn if that doesn't match Patty's nose!

As for the ways that could be used to extend Patty's arm and have moving fingers, I think that tube got it right. Simplest method possible, and fits with what is known about Patterson increasing a costume's forearms.

What Patty fingers are you talking about, and where do we see them moving?

 

[Luminous]

Hey Luminous check this post out from the mystery cat thread:

I can't even begin to see how he's seeing a dog or something other than cat. Is he being dishonest? You see big house cat, he sees dog. Something to think about.

Okay, could someone finally cue me in to this mystery cat thing? I still have no idea what that was all about. Who is seeing a dog? I seem to be missing some key information here. What's the point?

 

[LTC8K6]

This is what I meant about "fingers" and what I think Sweaty was spinning.

Does Patty have individual fingers, or a one piece "mitten"?

I haven't looked in a while, but I think WP is right in that we never see individual fingers, just a "hand" moving as a unit.

I don't recall any stills where you can see individual fingers, but as I said, I have not looked in a while, and a glove would still look like fingers in this film anyway.

What you need to see is fingers move individually. I would find that very interesting.

 

[Luminous]

Ah yes, the close ups tell the real story. WHOA! Not that close.

I would love to hear why you don't agree with this particular 'expert's' commentary.

Because it would mean that Patty is human, shapes her head, braids her hair, lives in cultured villages and is smart enough to use fire. Even us Bigfoot proponents think that's absurd. He produces some great shots of Patty though.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think the only thing I have seen is that much magnified clip where Patty supposedly touches her "fingers" and her thumb.

Of course, that motion is just what you can do with the simple items already described.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/2556524

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/3413658

 

[William Parcher]

I think the only thing I have seen is that much magnified clip where Patty supposedly touches her "fingers" and her thumb.

Post it.

Here is Marlon Davis showing his now-famous enhanced image of Patty. The hands are cropped out of the image. If he can show details such as a protruding bulbous nose and a thick clefted upper lip, then he ought to have been able to include detailed hands in this same image. Why are they cropped out? Did he think the hands were not necessary to include because the face was alone enough to destroy skeptical ideas that this is a man in a costume? Show us the hands, MK Davis!

Wait... maybe Davis really did do a manipulation that included a hand. Oh damn. The face is nicely detailed, but the left hand looks like an amputated stump. I mean, how can the face show so much detail while the left hand shows total nothingness? It's a freaking stump! Should we all be perfectly honest in evaluating this evidence and suggest that Patty completely lost her left hand at some point in her life? Dude, step away from the poster... now we want to see the right hand...

 

[LTC8K6]

WP, you can see it in this video, which must be taken from MKD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Khbis2GPw

 

[William Parcher]

WP, you can see it in this video, which must be taken from MKD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Khbis2GPw

Of course that's a Davis production. I'm not sure that he is responsible for the soundtrack, because he's a good ole' boy from Mississippi and they don't tend to enjoy hip-hop or techno samples.

From this video, I noticed two things:

1) The breasts are completely unmoving and rigid; suggesting that Bigfoot feeds its young with a dense semi-solid, like toothpaste.

2) The soundtrack has fascinating lyrics like...

We control the datamatics
We control the big deek
We control the gofreads
We're control the traffic lights
We control the puterglife
We control the cheap a simp...

 

[hodgy]

Its a bloke in a suit.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

What's your agenda Teresa? You came over here to promote a radio show, and then you turn and take a nip at Sweaty. (I'm sure there are many here who would like to take a nip at him too, and will applaud your snipe.) But he has been kind toward me and I really appreciate that about him. If you want to talk about Bigfoot, let's talk. The last thing bigfoot skeptics need to see is one Bigfoot proponent attacking another Bigfoot proponent. There are so few of us here as it is. You are in no way "over" him, therefore you should not be admonishing him as if you were.

I don't have an agenda and I didn't come over here to promote a radio show. Read back to my first post and why I came. What I said to Sweaty was not meant as a nip, swipe, or even an attack. It was meant as my true opinion. I never said I was "over Sweaty" and I'm not 100% a proponent for the existence of bigfoot. If I were I still wouldn't jump on Sweaty's bandwagon if I didn't agree with him. I don't think a proponent should come to a skeptical forum and insult skeptics for being skeptical. He won't convince anyone here by insulting them. I'd like to see a species of undocumented primate proven to exist but nothing 100% conclusive has been forthcoming since 1967. I don't call people fools for not seeing what I see or believing the way I believe. I don't think that's the way to convince anyone. As for one bigfoot proponent attacking another, even if I were convinced and was a bigfoot proponent whole heartedly, if I don't agree with another bigfoot proponent I am not going to align myself with that person because they are a bigfoot proponent. If I disagree I'll say so and that's as it should be.

I appreciate Sweaty's ability to be kind to others as well but that in no way reflects on my opinion of bigfoot research nor should it. I don't agree with people because they're nice, I agree with people because I think they are right or have a valid point. Are you saying you follow his point of view because he's been nice to you and you appreciate that?