Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I'm not compromising my principles for anyone and I'm opposed to standing short or tall with anyone simply based on whether they were nice to me or not.

Sweaty has talked down to a number of people on this forum and I've not seen a single apology in reference to that, only more of the same from Sweaty. It is a bigfoot issue for me in that he is taken as a bigfoot proponent and I'm embarrassed by his behavior. Calling people fools is no way to get a point across about bigfoot.

Again you miss the opportunity to mention that Sweety's behavior here might be energized by LAL's posted support of him. She doesn't seem to think he is as bad as you do. It seems that Lu eggs him on to act like he does here. She never even asks him to be more civil or anything like that when she blows her kisses to him.

Maybe you just haven't read enough of Krantz to convince you that Bigfoot skeptics are stupidly blind and ought to be treated as such.

 

[William Parcher]

Calling people fools is no way to get a point across about bigfoot.

Oh and by the way, maybe you could point out to us what sorts of points about Bigfoot should be gotten across. You know about some facts that are related to the creature we are calling Bigfoot?

 

[William Parcher]

There has to be more than one hence bigfeet. Where do they live? If they cannot be seen by iFR or visual were are they?

I've already said here in this forum that if Bigfoot does exist, all of them live in one remote valley that nobody ever goes to.

 

[tube]

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.

I appreciate your forthright apology.

It took me a long time to think about the subject of Bigfoot in the way that I do now, and for a long time I thought of William Parcher's take on things as too extreme. But now I think he is dead on, in that it is much more fruitful to look at the subject as a unique combination of myth, quasi-religion, hoax, self-promotion, and wishful thinking.

Skeptics are usually put into a reactive position, in that they usually react to extraordinary claims. In this equation, those who make the extraordinary claims offer up the first serve. In doing so, they frame the topics of debate. If I claim to be running a functioning cold fusion device in my basement, it is the skeptics who REACT to my specific claims.

I remember being involved in a long drawn out debate on Bigfoot Forums about the "Minnesota Iceman". Having been a sideshow performer, it was immediate and obvious to me what the equation really was. Yet Ivan 15-foot-penguin Sanderson and his partner Heuvelmans were able to frame the debate in the popular media. Thus, skeptics were forced to react to claims about things as esoteric as "agouti" hair...

For years, the Bigfoot proponents were able to frame the Patterson film debate about things like "moving muscle masses" "inhuman gaits", "inhumanly long arms", etc, ad infinitum...

No, the fundamental question is simply this: guy-in-a-suit, yes or no? Now we need to figure out who the relevant experts really are to answer this question. And the answer is simple: creature suit guys!

Personally, I find Chorvinsky's investigation into what creature suit guys had to say about the Patterson film to be an underrated gem in the skeptical pantheon:

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

The fact is, Bigfoot proponents simply lack the relevant background necessary to make the right judgement; guy-in-a-suit, yes or no.

Chorvinsky sums it up well:

"My investigation did not lead to the craftsman of the Patterson suit, but one thing is clear -- none of the foremost makeup special effects experts in Hollywood that I interviewed think that the Patterson Bigfoot is anything but a man in a suit. Bigfoot buffs have perpetuated the myth that special makeup effects artists believed that the Patterson film was hard, if not impossible, to fake. This article should lay to rest any notion that makeup experts were generally impressed by the Patterson film."

There was a time when I was interested enough to investigate various elements of the Patterson film myself. In particular, the "inhuman" "Lower Level Leg Lift" and the "mid-foot pressure ridge". But you see, I was sucked into REACTING to the claims of the Bigfoot proponents. Even David Daegling got sucked into responding to the kinematic and metrological claims about this film. At this point I'm simply not interested in the opinions and musings of the Bigfoot proponents about this film, AS THEY HAVE NO SPECIAL EXPERTISE WITH REGARDS CREATURE COSTUMES.

 

[RayG]

Oh and by the way, maybe you could point out to us what sorts of points about Bigfoot should be gotten across. You know about some facts that are related to the creature we are calling Bigfoot?

Who's to say they're one and the same?

I've already said here in this forum that if Bigfoot does exist, all of them live in one remote valley that nobody ever goes to.

If this bigfoot critter does exist, sarcasm isn't going to be very useful in finding or classifying it.

RayG

 

[Teresa.Hall]

Oh and by the way, maybe you could point out to us what sorts of points about Bigfoot should be gotten across. You know about some facts that are related to the creature we are calling Bigfoot?

I can't help you there William. As far as I know there are no facts about bigfoot. There are a few items in my mind that are interesting, but no facts that I'm aware of. When I said "points" about bigfoot I meant the points Sweaty has put forth, and as Ray has said points and facts don't have to mean the same thing. I don't even pretend to know any facts about the bigfoot phenom.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

Again you miss the opportunity to mention that Sweety's behavior here might be energized by LAL's posted support of him. She doesn't seem to think he is as bad as you do. It seems that Lu eggs him on to act like he does here. She never even asks him to be more civil or anything like that when she blows her kisses to him.

I don't think Sweaty is necessarily "bad" only that he's exhibiting some behavior unbecoming. I don't know LAL or Sweaty but it appears they travel together from forum to forum and support each other generously.

Maybe you just haven't read enough of Krantz to convince you that Bigfoot skeptics are stupidly blind and ought to be treated as such.

I'm certainly not as well read as I should be, but then I'm a bit in the skeptical camp, myself.

 

[William Parcher]

Who's to say they're one and the same?

Points are usually facts or something that indicates a fact.

If this bigfoot critter does exist, sarcasm isn't going to be very useful in finding or classifying it.

Yeah, but I should point out to you that sarcasm by a poster on an internet forum (me) won't stop anyone from smashing a Bigfoot with their vehicle, shooting one with a gun, or finding a dead body, etc. Here's some more sarcasm for you...

Binky: Look, there's a dead Bigfoot. Let's get somebody over here to check it out.
Pinky: Yuck it stinks. But we can't just go and tell the world that we finally found Bigfoot.
Binky: Why?
Pinky: Because a guy on JREF is sarcastic and he scares me enough that I fear we will be ridiculed if we call somebody over here.
Binky: You're right, that Parcher dude on JREF with his sarcasm isn't very helpful for finding or classifying Bigfoot. Let's just move on and enjoy our hike and pretend we never saw that dead thing.
Pinky: But we could get rich because nobody has ever presented a Bigfoot body before.
Binky: Look, I've also seen what that Parcher says on the internet and it is terrifying to me. I guess we both agree on that. Let's go.
Pinky: Word!

 

[SweatyYeti]

I don't think Sweaty is necessarily "bad" only that he's exhibiting some behavior unbecoming. I don't know LAL or Sweaty but it appears they travel together from forum to forum and support each other generously.

"Unbecoming behavior". Hmmm...should I re-post the long list I compiled of kitakaze's insults, rudeness, and false accusations, directed at me?
You know the list, Teresa....the one where I didn't even bother to include all the references he made to me as an "asparagus head".

Also, Teresa....do you know if Melissa is going to re-post the MD thread on her board?
I hope she will, because I'd like others to see the "unbecoming behavior" of one of the administrators of Melissa's board (you know the one...he was recently banned from another Bigfoot board, for his EXTREME rudeness), and of other members, also......all directed at me.

When you look at the personal attacks and false accusations made against me, by you, Teresa, and other skeptics.....my refering to skeptics who can't even see the obvious...as "fools"...is really the least of the offenses that people are guilty of here.


As for me and Lu, just so there's no mystery about it.....we're good friends...via the internet.
We both think there's a high degree of probability that Bigfoot does exist, somewhere...based on the evidence at hand.
We don't "pretend" it exists, or pray at night that it does.

 

[drapier]

You're right, that Parcher dude on JREF with his sarcasm isn't very helpful for finding or classifying Bigfoot. Let's just move on and enjoy our hike and pretend we never saw that dead thing.

So you're the reason why these guys never went public with their finding.

Dead Bigfoot, Sasquatch Shot and Found on Hunting Trip

 

[William Parcher]

I don't know LAL or Sweaty but it appears they travel together from forum to forum and support each other generously.

Sounds like religious or cultish folks sticking together. It doesn't sound like people who simply think that a huge animal is just hiding from the civilized world and its modern technology.

I'm certainly not as well read as I should be, but then I'm a bit in the skeptical camp, myself.

But you chose to call your radio program "Let's Talk Bigfoot", instead of something like "Let's Talk About Whether Bigfoot Is A Myth Or Is Real". I might agree that even mentioning Bigfoot skepticism could scare away folks that want to talky talk talk about Bigfoot.

 

[SweatyYeti]

My point remains. You did speak "down" to him as if he was your inferior. People here may not like him, but I'll stand tall with anyone who shows genuine kindness to me, proponent or skeptic. This is not really a bigfooting issue, Teresa, it's an issue of treating others as you would want them to treat you. JMO

Thank you, Luminous!

Good luck to you...best wishes...don't stay long...and don't expect anyone here to acknowledge that any piece of evidence carries any weight at all.
It's all "unsupported, unverified, and unreliable" evidence....don't you know?!

 

[Teresa.Hall]

"Unbecoming behavior". Hmmm...should I re-post the long list I compiled of kitakaze's insults, rudeness, and false accusations, directed at me? You know the list, Teresa....the one where I didn't even bother to include all the references he made to me as an "asparagus head".

Not necessary, I've seen it. I don't know who started all of that. The posts I'm going by are the ones in context in the threads I've read since the date I joined the forum, not the ones pulled randomly out of threads past.

Also, Teresa....do you know if Melissa is going to re-post the MD thread on her board?
I hope she will, because I'd like others to see the "unbecoming behavior" of one of the administrators of Melissa's board (you know the one...he was recently banned from another Bigfoot board, for his EXTREME rudeness), and of other members, also......all directed at me.

No idea, ask her. It appears to create conflict and I'm not sure why.

When you look at the personal attacks and false accusations made against me, by you, Teresa, and other skeptics.....my refering to skeptics who can't even see the obvious...as "fools"...is really the least of the offenses that people are guilty of here.

Where have I personally attacked you or made a false accusation against you?? I don't agree with your posting style. I don't know you well enough to personally attack you. I don't remember ever falsely accusing you of anything.

As for me and Lu, just so there's no mystery about it.....we're good friends...via the internet.
We both think there's a high degree of probability that Bigfoot does exist, somewhere...based on the evidence at hand.
We don't "pretend" it exists, or pray at night that it does.

Therei's the rub. Some people don't think there is a high degree of probability and don't mind saying so. I never said either of you pretend or pray.

How did all of this get started between you and the skeptics of this board? I'd like to know. I have a lot of reading to do to find out, apparently.

 

[Luminous]

I appreciate your forthright apology.

It took me a long time to think about the subject of Bigfoot in the way that I do now, and for a long time I thought of William Parcher's take on things as too extreme. But now I think he is dead on, in that it is much more fruitful to look at the subject as a unique combination of myth, quasi-religion, hoax, self-promotion, and wishful thinking.

Skeptics are usually put into a reactive position, in that they usually react to extraordinary claims. In this equation, those who make the extraordinary claims offer up the first serve. In doing so, they frame the topics of debate. If I claim to be running a functioning cold fusion device in my basement, it is the skeptics who REACT to my specific claims.

I remember being involved in a long drawn out debate on Bigfoot Forums about the "Minnesota Iceman". Having been a sideshow performer, it was immediate and obvious to me what the equation really was. Yet Ivan 15-foot-penguin Sanderson and his partner Heuvelmans were able to frame the debate in the popular media. Thus, skeptics were forced to react to claims about things as esoteric as "agouti" hair...

For years, the Bigfoot proponents were able to frame the Patterson film debate about things like "moving muscle masses" "inhuman gaits", "inhumanly long arms", etc, ad infinitum...

No, the fundamental question is simply this: guy-in-a-suit, yes or no? Now we need to figure out who the relevant experts really are to answer this question. And the answer is simple: creature suit guys!

Personally, I find Chorvinsky's investigation into what creature suit guys had to say about the Patterson film to be an underrated gem in the skeptical pantheon:

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

The fact is, Bigfoot proponents simply lack the relevant background necessary to make the right judgement; guy-in-a-suit, yes or no.

Chorvinsky sums it up well:

"My investigation did not lead to the craftsman of the Patterson suit, but one thing is clear -- none of the foremost makeup special effects experts in Hollywood that I interviewed think that the Patterson Bigfoot is anything but a man in a suit. Bigfoot buffs have perpetuated the myth that special makeup effects artists believed that the Patterson film was hard, if not impossible, to fake. This article should lay to rest any notion that makeup experts were generally impressed by the Patterson film."

There was a time when I was interested enough to investigate various elements of the Patterson film myself. In particular, the "inhuman" "Lower Level Leg Lift" and the "mid-foot pressure ridge". But you see, I was sucked into REACTING to the claims of the Bigfoot proponents. Even David Daegling got sucked into responding to the kinematic and metrological claims about this film. At this point I'm simply not interested in the opinions and musings of the Bigfoot proponents about this film, AS THEY HAVE NO SPECIAL EXPERTISE WITH REGARDS CREATURE COSTUMES.

I hear where you're coming from, and there's some good points that you made. And as I am no costume expert, my opinion doesn't amount to much. Nevertheless, it is the appearance of musculature that interests me the most. I'm sure others have brought up the topic before, but my comments come from my own observations. The appearance of entire muscle groups makes me question if Patterson even had the skill (or the money) to build a suit elaborate enough to include these features. To me, it just doesn't seem logical that Roger Patterson was able to build a suit that rivaled and may have even superseded what they were building in Hollywood. Something just doesn't compute, IMO. That's where I'm coming from anyway.

 

[tube]

So you're the reason why these guys never went public with their finding.

Dead Bigfoot, Sasquatch Shot and Found on Hunting Trip

You know, for every "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" pro Bigfoot TV show, there must be 20 YouTube videos like this. I have to wonder what kids today must think of Bigfoot simply based on what they are exposed to in popular media.

I have to wonder if the YouTube ridicule factor is so high that 30 years from now, belief in Bigfoot will be like what belief in mermaids or fairies is like now...

But I'm sure that 30 years from now, at least some people will still be telling us about Patty's "moving muscle masses".

 

[tube]

Nevertheless, it is the appearance of musculature that interests me the most.

I found it very interesting to watch Penn and Teller appear to catch bullets in their teeth.

 

[William Parcher]

Also, Teresa....do you know if Melissa is going to re-post the MD thread on her board?
I hope she will, because I'd like others to see the "unbecoming behavior" of one of the administrators of Melissa's board (you know the one...he was recently banned from another Bigfoot board, for his EXTREME rudeness), and of other members, also......all directed at me.

When you look at the personal attacks and false accusations made against me, by you, Teresa, and other skeptics.....my refering to skeptics who can't even see the obvious...as "fools"...is really the least of the offenses that people are guilty of here.

As for me and Lu, just so there's no mystery about it.....we're good friends...via the internet.
We both think there's a high degree of probability that Bigfoot does exist, somewhere...based on the evidence at hand.
We don't "pretend" it exists, or pray at night that it does.

WTF does showing or hiding postings, and who is friends with who, have to do with an enormous bipedal primate living in American forests? Is Bigfoot an animal after all, or just some stuff that people say on the internet? Do you want to come right out and say that Bigfoot is nothing more than who favors who and what gets posted on the web? Screw that!

Did you forget that this is all supposed to be about a very large North American mammal, instead of bullcrap jockying for online social positions and associations? Believers are trying to convince each other and skeptics that such an animal is forever hiding among the pines, but instead they spend time pulling power games and engage in kissy-face and punch-your-face stuff.

You know what... surprise, surprise. I don't even think this thing called Bigfoot exists at all. Where the hell is this thing, and why the hell can't anybody seem to get a body or decent footage of it? It's like some kind of a joke or something. No really, this creature is some kind of a strange joke that people are playing on each other.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Teresa.Hall:

I don't know who started all of that.

You know who committed all of that.....kitakaze.

Please.....feel free to ask kitakaze to put together a collection of similar insults, rudeness, and false accusations that I made towards him.
He won't be able to.

Where have I personally attacked you or made a false accusation against you?? I don't agree with your posting style. I don't know you well enough to personally attack you. I don't remember ever falsely accusing you of anything.

Yesterday. Here is what you said....

You're trolling like there's no tomorrow and it's shameful.

Why do you insist on trolling this forum and insulting everyone?

What is your definition of a "troll"?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Luminous wrote:

Nevertheless, it is the appearance of musculature that interests me the most.

Something else for you to take note of, Luminous, is the body contour of Patty's hide. That alone sets the "suit" apart from many, if not all, suits of that time.
Notice the tight contour along the back of the legs, and the knees, and the outline of Patty's upper arm.

She's something very special.

 

[William Parcher]

I found it very interesting to watch Penn and Teller appear to catch bullets in their teeth.

They catch bullets in their teeth because quite obviously they have the kind of teeth that allow them to catch bullets. Let's form a group and start arguing against any skeptics. The teeth don't really matter. It's important that you and I work against the skeptics and be super friendly to any other folks that think like us. It's a hell of a start, it could be made into a monster if we all pull together as a team. Well I've always had a deep respect, and I mean that most sincerely. Penn & Teller are just fantastic, that is really what I think. Oh by the way, which one's pink?

Will you stick with me on this, Matt?