Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

What is your definition of a "troll"?

Hold it right there boy. Have you ever considered that Teresa and others may have been boonswaggled into thinking that Bigfoot might exist because of the profound proclamations of people like yourself? Do you even consider how close you are to people who claim that God or Jesus is right here among us? Are you so confident because you have a Bigfoot body sitting in your freezer out back? Are you reaching the point where you are going to go door-to-door ringing bells with a Krantz book in your hand?

This whole Bigfoot belief thing is reaching some kind of insanity. Did you know that we don't have a specimen of this proposed American beast after 450 years of inhabitance in this place? Did you know that the people that previously inhabited this land for centuries also do not have anything to show for this creature other than talky talk?

Stop harrassing Teresa about trolling and at least give the rest of us some kind of direct evidence that an enormous hairy bipedal primate is living in our forests right now. Do that right now! This back and forth bickering is distracting and has nothing to do with Bigfoot. Stop making this look exactly like a religion, and start showing us where to find Bigfoot.

 

[tsig]

Hold it right there boy. Have you ever considered that Teresa and others may have been boonswaggled into thinking that Bigfoot might exist because of the profound proclamations of people like yourself? Do you even consider how close you are to people who claim that God or Jesus is right here among us? Are you so confident because you have a Bigfoot body sitting in your freezer out back? Are you reaching the point where you are going to go door-to-door ringing bells with a Krantz book in your hand?

This whole Bigfoot belief thing is reaching some kind of insanity. Did you know that we don't have a specimen of this proposed American beast after 450 years of inhabitance in this place? Did you know that the people that previously inhabited this land for centuries also do not have anything to show for this creature other than talky talk?

Stop harrassing Teresa about trolling and at least give the rest of us some kind of direct evidence that an enormous hairy bipedal primate is living in our forests right now. Do that right now! This back and forth bickering is distracting and has nothing to do with Bigfoot. Stop making this look exactly like a religion, and start showing us where to find Bigfoot.

Bigfeet live in the mind.

 

[carcharodon]

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!

FX people and suit designers are notorious for proclaiming such and such can be done, even when it can't. With a replica of Patty, since they don't have to try and put their money where their mouths are they can say what they like. Doesn't make their opinions fact.

Most famously, Bob Mattey assured Steven Spielberg he could build a 25 ft great white shark that would do everything Spielberg wanted. When it actually came to putting his claims into practice................well it didn't quite work out like that.

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

The fact is, creature suit designers lack the relevant background necessary to make the right judgement: animal, yes or no?

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

Chorvinski:

"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."""

None? This wasn't 1967 Chorvinski was conducting his survey was it? You know, THE ERA THE FILM WAS MADE. So he didn't go to Disney to refute their claim then? Obviously Chorvinski didn't watch The Mysterious Monsters either. In that Janos Prohaska CLEARLY proclaims the subject in the P/G footage to be better than anything he could come up with. No mention of that by Chorvinski though. John Chambers is also on record saying "I was good, but not that good". No mention of that by Chorvinski either. Well well, what a surprise he left out some important bits of information there.

Chorvinski again:


""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.""

So Doctors Grieve and Donskoy were elevated to 'bigfoot proponents' by Chorvinski were they? And there is me thinking they were indifferent to the subject of bigfoot until asked to analyse the footage.

Chorvinski once more:

""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.""

Did Chorvinski listen to the FX suit experts at Optic Nerve Studios who told us how easy it would be to replicate Patty, and who then gave us this piece of bollocks???

And Optic Nerve wasn't even embarrased about showing one of their creations in a major BBC documentary. They obviously thought it was good enough to be shown internationally.

Cue loud gaffaws.

John Vulich by the way (the expert making loud claims about the Patterson footage) was sure John Chambers made the suit. Now what are we to make of this then, along with all his other 'gut feelings' about the Patterosn/Gimlin footage. This was a few years before Heiroimus and Morris came along to give further scoftics another poop ridden little stick to cling to.

Bottom line, tube, is that what FX people say they can do and what they can actually do are two entirely different things. I would have thought Dfoot's loud boastful proclaimations that eventually came to diddly squat over on BFF would have made a lasting impression on you tube.

Evidently it didn't.

 

[carcharodon]

Stop harrassing Teresa about trolling and at least give the rest of us some kind of direct evidence that an enormous hairy bipedal primate is living in our forests right now. Do that right now!

Hes already done it. Many many times in the past. He's now given up because unfortunately the blind stubborn died in the wool scoftics like you keep on ignoring it because it isn't the proof you want. You are not interested in evidence, you are only interested in proof. You want the proof before you will consider the evidence.

There is evidence that a large (I wouldn't say enormous. It's not King Kong) hairy bipedal primate is living in the forests of parts of North America. You have been presented with it, time and time again. Is there proof for it though? No, not yet. There is clearly evidence pointing towards it however.

By the way, WTF does 'direct' evidence mean in the context of bigfoot? Evidence is evidence. Is this some half arsed way of demanding proof? In which case be big enough to demand that proof. Don't piss about pretending you are interested in any kind of evidence when you clearly aren't.

 

[kitakaze]

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.

Committed? That's rich. Did he start it, Sweaty? Well, he committed it... Pure Sweat.

Personally, I love it when you post that hand-picked selection of responses/comments by me to you. I don't quite get how you think it's helpful for you or how you think by posting it it reflects poorly on me and not you, though. I stand behind every full and fragmented quote you've collected there. What I really love to think about is how much time you must have spent on that and also how long you've been dodging that one purely bigfoot-related question that we've all been trying to get you to face up to.

I have a rather modest collection of Sweaty comments/responses I put together the other day. It's my new favourite, I think I'll be linking it a lot. For now, let's just call it for short:

I'll never refuse to answer a question.

As you like to say, though, stay tuned...

More Pure Sweat to come.

 

[kitakaze]

Here's one I really love. Sweaty found it easier to run away than make the point he was asked for from the beginning of his finger bending bit. Laughing at and mocking skeptics for giving him the alternatives he asked for was apparantly also easier:

tconley2019 wrote:

And again, the entire argument is worthless. Even if you're right and the fingers bend, it doesn't help determine whether Patty is a suit or an unknown primate.

Actually it does....but just how much is debatable.

But considering how long it took...on this sewer of a discussion board...to show something as simple and obvious as Patty's fingers bending...attempting that would simply be another HUGE waste of my time.

I enjoyed watching the skeptics here cough-up anything and everything they could to explain the OBVIOUS finger-bending as something else.....it was a true pleasure.
(It was as if they had a NEED to....for some strange reason.)

LTC's interview for the "Skeptical Scientist" magazine was one of the highlights!

But, fortunately...there are much more pleasant boards to discuss things on than this pit.

Bye bye.....you skeptical idiots!

SweatyYeti, stop insulting people.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Patricio Elicer

Up next:

The Return of the Sweat.

Reasons given compared with selected posts.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hey Lyndon...nice to see you again!

Very well written post....you're absolutely correct.

You are not interested in evidence, you are only interested in proof.

You hit the skeptical nail on the head.

There seems to be a percentage of people who can only see things in terms of "black-and-white"....."all-or-nothing".
These people have trouble understanding the gray area in-between two extremes.
And that's what "evidence" is, most of the time...a gray area. It's measured in terms of "probabilities".....not "absolutes".
Evidence for something doesn't mean that that something is true.... only that there's a reason to think it may be true.

But when a skeptic here talks about the evidence for Bigfoot, they always frame it in terms of "proof"...and "knowing" whether or not the evidence was actually left by Bigfoot.

We don't need to know whether or not Bigfoot was responsible for the evidence, for the evidence to indicate a certain "degree of probability" that the creature exists.

The way these skeptics think....if you don't have proof of something being true....you have nothing.

That's why I've said that it's a waste of time for Bigfoot proponents to discuss and debate the evidence for Bigfoot here....because the "all or nothing" type of mindset simply doesn't grasp the concept of "evidence"...and therefore cannot acknowledge it's "weight".

This is why the skeptics here continually say the same thing over and over again........"where's the proof....got a body?"
That's all they seem to really understand.....proof.

To see what I mean, quite clearly.....all someone has to do is go look through the posts here by the skeptics and compare how many times they refer to the evidence in terms of "proof"....using words such as "prove", "know", "verify"...to how many times they refer to evidence using other "gray-area" terms, such as....."weight", "probability", "likelihood".

The ratio is probably very high.

 

[drapier]

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!

Some years ago while reading about primitive economies (I think it was in Marshall Sahlins's Stone Age Economics) I came across a statement about how early humans, perhaps surprisingly, had lots of leisure time in which to develop their complex social interactions, hierarchies, and rivalries. The author also drew on some research of other primates to point out a similar balance of "work" to "leisure" among baboons.

The factoid that has stuck with me all these years was the statement that baboons spend 20% of their waking hours collecting food and attending to their physical needs and the remaining 80% of their time making life miserable for other baboons.

I think one of the wonderful things about the idea of bigfoot is that the big hairy man (unlike, say, baboons or people who chat about bigfoot on internet discussion boards) is never reported picking nits or making life miserable for other bigfeet. Like a more authentic version of Henry David Thoreau, bigfoot chooses the solitude of nature over the petty strife of society.

 

[tube]

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?

This is an outstanding idea. The group needs to be a Bullet Catch Research Group to give it credibility. The physical reality of the Bullet Catch Research Group shall consist of one elaborate website. One of us will need to be the chairman and the other the Sargent At Arms. We will need to start a blog. The blog shall mostly consist of interviews with other Bullet Catch Researchers.

Later on down the line, we can set up an Internet radio interview program, which shall mostly consist of interviews with other Bullet Catch Researchers.

Being that I've actually "hung out" with Teller;

I'm going to be the official celebrity suck-up. If we play our cards right, we might be able to get him to become an "advisor" to our Research Group. When one of the newbs of the group accumulates enough posts on our Discussion Forum, they will have the privilege of asking Teller a question. This will be on a "protected" forum, to avoid any scrutiny by Bullet Catch scoftics.

Genuine Research such as ours needs a demon, a boogie-man to hate, loath, and revile. I believe our demon will have to be Ben Robinson, author of Twelve Have Died, a book which suggests there are prosaic explanations for Our Phenomenon.

I heard Robinson once stole stuff from a National Monument...

When we run out of steam from simply interviewing each other, we drift off to magic forums to argue with the infidels and promote our blog-radio show-website-Research Group-upcoming Bullet Catch Symposium.

The supreme accomplishment is, of course, to get on TV. This legitimizes Our Phenomenon to the widest possible audience. Besides interviewing ourselves on camera, we will include the on-camera testimony of Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert of the highest order, who will opine on the right hand twist rifling of the spent bullet as being conclusive evidence of the reality of Our Phenomenon.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Personally, I love it when you post that hand-picked selection of responses/comments by me to you.

And so do I. I love posting that collection of rudeness, insults and false accusations that you spewed forth, kitakaze.

I enjoyed "hand-picking" every one of them out of your meaningless posts.

As I said, I didn't even include all the "asparagus head" insults you handed me...without cause.


I've heard that you can be very nice. I can be very nice, also.....along with 99.99% of the rest of humanity.

But the true indicator of a person's morals, and quality of character...or integrity...is not "can he be nice".....almost every human being is, at some time or another........it's how often is he rude, and disrespectful towards others.
That's where there's a big difference between people.

That's also where there's a BIG difference between you and me, kitakaze.
I'd never show the amount of rudeness and disrespect for another human being, that you've shown towards me.....and others.....on this forum.

Maybe I should go find, and re-post, the posts where Kathy "Hairy Man" talked about your rudeness to her....how you were "creeping her out".

You are rude beyond anything that's the least bit "called-for"....and it's very telling about the quality of your character.

 

[kitakaze]

I'd never show the amount of rudeness and disrespect for another human being, that you've shown towards me.....and others.....on this forum.

I'm sorry, what? Sometimes the idiot brain-dead skeptic fools in this sewage pit can be hard of hearing.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

kitakaze

Maybe I should go find, and re-post, the posts where Kathy "Hairy Man" talked about your rudeness to her....how you were "creeping her out".

Why don't' you do that SweatyFoot ?..

You obviously have no evidence that supports the existence of a non-human North American primate..

Out of 545 posts, I see where you have managed to present evidence that rubber is flexible.
I'm sure the call from the Nobel committee will come any day now..

 

[kitakaze]

As I said, I didn't even include all the "asparagus head" insults you handed me...without cause.

Tell you what, how about since you're going to just keep dodging questions but not the board could you just go ahead and put that together? What I was really hoping for though was if you could include a complete compilation of every variation of Sweaty I've used (Stimpy, Slurpy, Squiggy, etc.). I don't to want start using the old ones. Thanks.

 

[SweatyYeti]

The key word in my post was "amount".
The amount, and the extent, of your rudeness towards others speaks volumes about your moral character, kitakaze.


Diogenes wrote:

You obviously have no evidence that supports the existence of a non-human North American primate..

Thank you Greg for providing a fresh example of the "all or nothing" type of thinking that I just talked about.
I appreciate your support.

 

[kitakaze]

The key word in my post was "amount".
The amount, and the extent, of your rudeness towards others speaks volumes about your moral character, kitakaze

And yet you managed to refrain from allcaping it and chucking in an ellipsis or two. Stunning. Nevertheless, if that's the case I'd say you were flat-out lying and tell you to go review your post history. Then I'd suggest maybe having a chat with carcharodon about double standards.

Thank you Greg for providing a fresh example of the "all or nothing" type of thinking that I just talked about.
I appreciate your support.

Stick it to him, Sweat. Stick it to him oldschool:

What he should be admonished for is ignoring questions....and refusing to elaborate on and explain what he says in his posts....because that's NOT how people intelligently and honestly debate an issue.
It's how they play games.

 

[kitakaze]

Stop harrassing Teresa about trolling and at least give the rest of us some kind of direct evidence that an enormous hairy bipedal primate is living in our forests right now. Do that right now! This back and forth bickering is distracting and has nothing to do with Bigfoot. Stop making this look exactly like a religion, and start showing us where to find Bigfoot.

Hes already done it. Many many times in the past.

You mean like New York Joyce? Have you changed your mind or is sea to sea footy still not your cup of tea? Was that some of the good stuff or the not-so-hot variety?

 

[kitakaze]

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.

My apologies for not responding to this sooner, Luminous. Your sincere apology is most certainly accepted. Though I may be nobody to you but a handle on a board, I applaud your reflecting on and taking responsibility for your comments here. Thank you.

 

[Luminous]

My apologies for not responding to this sooner, Luminous. Your sincere apology is most certainly accepted. Though I may be nobody to you but a handle on a board, I applaud your reflecting on and taking responsibility for your comments here. Thank you.

I'm doing my best. I had something unexpected happen to me so I have been quite distracted. But I'll try to pick up where I left off as soon as I can.

I'd like to prove that sincere BF proponents and sincere skeptics can have civil debates and even disagreements and actually still get along. That's a pretty good goal don't you think? Thank you for providing the inspiration to even attempt this. It's social experiment I guess. I hope it turns out well. It won't be like winning the Nobel peace prize or anything like that, but it would be great to set a precedent for others to follow.

It will require sincerity and maturity on both sides of the asle, but from personal experience, I know this can be done.

 

[Luminous]

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

Actually, that would be amazing to see!

 

[William Parcher]

Actually, that would be amazing to see!

Amazing it is, and true! Any closed-minded skeptic is given a simple and silent statement...

Tube and I will be marketing this true phenomenon. By Monday we will accept PayPal payments.