Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

Correa's post, #9617, is 100% pure BS....


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Skeleton11.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Skeletons22.jpg[/qimg]


In the original skeletal image of Patty...the length of the hand is shorter than the length of the forearm....but in Correa's image, the lengths of the hand and forearm are the same.

Nice work, Correa.....you BS artist.



And without any thought, either!

Sweaty's debate tactics: try to evade topics and presents a reply that is an obfuscation atempt, built by ignoring inconvenient facts and parts, and presenting a highly distorted version the original argument, coupled with ad homs. Sweaty, this will not hide the wekkness of you position. It never did, it never will.

Let me tell you what BS is, Sweaty...

- BS is to use the above described debate tactics

- BS is to think the measurements made over Patty image can provide any reliable evidence that its a real animal.

- BS is to fabricate a skeleton over Patty's image and proclaim it is evidence of anything else than that you can draw a skeleton over an image.

- BS is to deny or downplay the implications of the following facts regading PGF's authenticity:
(i) There's evidence that Patterson bought and modified a gorilla suit to play a prank on someone
(ii) Human proportions can be easilly altered by costumes
(iii) There's nothing in Patty image (still or in movment) that could not be replicated by vintage FX costume tech.

- BS is to present over and over the same comparison between Patterson and BBC costumes, while making vague and flawed claims about "realism", "shaggy hair" and arm lenght.

- BS is to use data (highly) suspected of being a fraud to back a claim.

- BS is try to back a claim using information derived from data (highly) suspected of being a fraud.

Next time you decide to post, Sweaty, make sure to think about what you are going to write. You make a skeptic's "job" much easier, and even delightfull, by presenting this sort of material. Keep up the good job, Sweaty!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Sweaty's debate tactics: try to evade topics and presents a reply that is an obfuscation atempt, built by ignoring inconvenient facts and parts, and presenting a highly distorted version of the original argument,

More Bull---- from Correa.

Here again is what you stated in your post with the distorted skeleton of Patty....

I can force Patty's digital skeleton inside a vintage gorilla costume! It took me some 20 min of cut-and-paste job. Articulations, the propper pose, proportions, it's all there!

Wrong Correa!! The proportions are NOT there....you've changed, (distorted) them.


Little FACT for you....when you distort the proportions of Patty's skeleton, it's no longer Patty's skeleton....it's just a skeleton.

Here again is your intentionally distorted version of Patty....

Do you dispute the fact that it's distorted?

What does distorting it's proportions show, anyway???

 

[kitakaze]

(post deleted as it singled out a member for special treatment)

 

[chillzero]

I said stop it. Stop bickering, and stop singling each other out for 'special treatment' by the rest of the members. If you continue this behaviour, further mod action will follow.

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

 

[Correa Neto]

Dumbing down again for SweatyYeti

Correa Neto wrote:


More Bull---- from Correa.

Here again is what you stated in your post with the distorted skeleton of Patty....




Wrong Correa!! The proportions are NOT there....you've changed them.


Little FACT for you....when you distort the proportions of Patty's skeleton, it's no longer Patty's skeleton....it's just a skeleton.

Here again is your intentionally distorted version of Patty....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Skeleton11.jpg[/qimg]


Do you dispute the fact that it's distorted?

What does distorting it's proportions show, anyway???

Ah, Sweaty, I told you to think before posting! You should have listened. A few loose sentences with no substance at all coupled with some insinuations can not help you. BTW, the standard evasion from addressing the pointed issues and the obfuscation maneauvers were noted.

Here's a part that for some reason you (quite conveniently, it seems) missed:

I can force Patty's digital skeleton inside a vintage gorilla costume!

Its obvious I distorted it! Patty's proportions are not like the ones of that gorilla costume, and both are not equal to humans proportions. Please keep the previous sentence in your mind.

You also seem to have missed or not propperly understood this part:

Articulations, the propper pose, proportions, its all there!

Obviously its about the location of articulations in the gorilla costume and its proportions, outside human range. And the "propper pose" is a refference to perspective. Yes, perspective, an issue most PGF defenders, you included, do not take in to account. Perspective, like you or not, changes poportions and renders the anatomic inferences made over Patty's image nearly useless. Please keep the previous sentence in your mind. Oh, I almost forgot to tell you its also another reason why some distortion was needed.

Aniway, here we came to the most important point: A skeleton can be draw inside both of them, Just like skeletons can be drawn inside cartoon characters. Anyone can make these skeletons and they may even look realistic.

Do you remember the other two things I told you to keep in mind?
-Patty and the gorilla costume have proportions outside human range.

-Perspective changes poportions and renders the anatomic inferences made over Patty's image nearly useless.

These three points show, as I already have stated a number of times before, that inferring an anatomy for Patty and use it as evidence to back the claim she's not a bloke in a gorilla bigfoot costume can be a deeply flawed methodology. To say IMs, IMIs or a digital Patty skeleton are reliable evidences, obtained through sound procedures is a demonstration, in the best case, of ignorance and in the worst, of dishonesty. Fantasy skeletons will never be evidence that theres an ammount of chance, regardless of how minimal or infinitesimal it is, of Buggs Bunny, Marvin the Martian or bigfeet being real.

So, Sweaty, above you had some of the real issues once again presented for you. Add to this the fact that there's anedoctal evidence that Patterson bought and modified a gorilla suit to play a prank on someone and the other issues raised by other posters, such as the contradictions and timeline. Now can you counter these arguments? Can you offer a single good reason why consider PGF is not a fraud?

Oh, and at last but not least, you'de better not even try to suggest distorting the digital skeleton was a dishonest move. I suggest you to know how the digital skeleton was built before doing so. I suggest you to read about how bone and skeleton reconstructions are made before doing so.

 

[kitakaze]

Little FACT for you....when you distort the proportions of Patty's skeleton, it's no longer Patty's skeleton....it's just a skeleton.

Sweaty does not seem to see the irony in telling us what is not Patty's skeleton.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

A skeleton can be draw inside both of them, Just like skeletons can be drawn inside cartoon characters.

Absolutely true....a skeleton can be drawn inside of any suit, or any animal's outline. So what??

In the LMS show, as far as I know, it was never claimed that the Vision-Realm computer-generated skeleton was proof, or evidence, that Patty was a real Bigfoot.
It was generated simply to show what the subject's skeleton would look like IF it was indeed a real animal.

 

[historian]

Shouldn't that be not earlier than Oct. 1967?

Obviously it could not have been filmed any later than when it was first seen.

The question was always whether it might have been filmed earlier, iirc.

A verdict after a trial where the opposition was not allowed to participate loses most of it's effect.

John Green thought Ivan Marx filmed a genuine bigfoot too...sorta takes the shine off his endorsement of the PGF...

Funny. I never heard that the question that you brought up, had ever been asked before, much less being say, the most important question ever asked in regard to the P-G film. Exactly when a real Bigfoot had been captured on film, has never been an issue that I am aware of. As I see it, the most important issue that can be resolved in regard to the matter to which you are referring, is that no time-space continuum laws of the universe have been flagrantly violated. Such as the P-G Bigfoot being caught on film, say some time after the P-G film was viewed by Rene Daldren. I am confident that those time-space laws of the universe, have not been significantly violated. I patiently await the Skeptic's arguments, that will attempt to sew seeds of doubt into this prediction in regard to the time-space continuum.

As far as any alleged attempt by Patterson himself to obtain a costume, PROVE IT.

As far as any alleged costume in the alleged possession of Patterson, have any similarities to Patty, PROVE IT.

As far as any skeleton overlays alleging to create any valid arguement that discredits the P-G film, GET A LIFE.

242 pages of Patterson-Gimlin chat room jousting, all depend on one thing, and one thing only. That THING is that a semi-illiterate cowboy from yakima washington, did not attempt to attract attention to himself by falsely claiming that he was inside of a suit similar to the cheap Halloween costume that he poses with in the below photo for a Yakima TV station.
In my opinion, one would have to have just fell off the back end of a turnip truck, in order to believe that Heironimus is telling the truth above anything in regard to the P-G film. He has received too much phoney publicity and far too much attention, that he can never not live that lie. Remember, there are people in this world that are very practiced liars. They can lie just, if not more easily than they can tell the truth. They will even tell lies for no apparent reason, just to keep in practice. I have witnessed those personalities. So is the man pictured below, a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, or is he the next SPIRITUAL LEADER FOR JAMES RANDI EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION? You have to ask yourself one more question, prior to reaching such a life changing decision. Would you drink a glass of kool-aid, that this man may have offered you? Perhaps the answer to that question, can assist you in the tortured process of reaching the decision as to whether this man is a NATURAL BORN LIAR.

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto wrote:



Absolutely true....a skeleton can be drawn inside of any suit, or any animal's outline. So what??

In the LMS show, as far as I know, it was never claimed that the Vision-Realm computer-generated skeleton was proof, or evidence, that Patty was a real Bigfoot.
It was generated simply to show what the subject's skeleton would look like IF it was indeed a real animal.

Not so fast, Sweaty... This is the chain of reasoning.

- A skeleton can be draw inside costumes and cartoon characters.

- Costumes can significantly change human proportions.

- Measurements made in images, without the propper calibrations can be very imprecise; the exact location of articulations, for example, is doubtfull.

These three issues alone are enough to render all the arguments about Patty's alleged inhuman proportions as inconclusive at best. They may be interesting to chat about and make some informal comments. And thats as far as one should go.

Do not forget the anedoctal evidence regarding Patterson buying and modifying a gorilla suit to play a prank on someone and the other issues raised by other posters, such as the contradictions and timeline. With this in mind, one can, should not, must not use data derived from the PGF to back somehow the "bigfeet are real" claim. This will never become good science. It is, and will always be, junk science.

I'll ask again:
Can you counter these arguments? Can you offer a single good reason why consider PGF is not a fraud?

And at last but not least, Patty's digital skeleton is not a "what if" creation for some footers and you know this. Its presented as something that explains Patty's IM and alleged inhuman gait. Its quite often presented as something that adds credibility and weight to the "Patty is a real bigfoot" claim. This is how it was exposed at LMS. Feel free to show evidence I am wrong.

 

[Correa Neto]

Ah, yeah.

I would drink a glass of kool-aid with BH. I would drink a couple of beers with him.

I would not do the same someone who claims to interact with invisible interdimensional bigfeet, wood gnomes and four-legged interdimensional little people. I would not do the same with someone who claims that EMP and X rays can erase DVDs because DVD store data in magnetic media and have circuits. Such a person would most likely be a pathological liar. Such a person would need to get a life...

 

[bruto]

Ah, yeah.

I would drink a glass of kool-aid with BH. I would drink a couple of beers with him.

I would not do the same someone who claims to interact with invisible interdimensional bigfeet, wood gnomes and four-legged interdimensional little people. I would not do the same with someone who claims that EMP and X rays can erase DVDs because DVD store data in magnetic media and have circuits. Such a person would most likely be a pathological liar. Such a person would need to get a life...

Speaking entirely theoretically, of course....

 

[LTC8K6]

As far as any alleged attempt by Patterson himself to obtain a costume, PROVE IT.

As far as any alleged costume in the alleged possession of Patterson, have any similarities to Patty, PROVE IT.

See PGF. Obviously he obtained a costume, and obviously it looked like Patty.

Would you drink a glass of kool-aid, that this man may have offered you?

Probably not, but then again I don't think he played Patty for the PGF, either.

Having no obligation to show who the actor may have been, BH is neither here nor there to me.

 

[William Parcher]

Historian and monstro's paranormal Bigfoot theory may have some capable supporters.

Short documentary released on the anniversary of the PGF.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I found some pictures of gorilla suits with leg muscles. Here are some pictures of one from 1934. Here's (a mildly NSFW) one from the 80's. Also, the costume used in the 70's remake of "King Kong" used a muscle undersuit.

Speaking of costumes, I thought it was odd that the short-furred costume from "King Kong vs. Godzilla" wasn't mentioned in the shag-itis post. Speaking of short fur, Ivan Marx's costume had fur much shorter than Patty's. Besides, it's not like we haven't gone over multiple reasons that a hoaxer might trim a costume's fur.

Also, these pictures always make me think about the hilarious claims of an "impossible-to-hoax" buttcrack on Patty.

It also turns out that this picture isn't from John Green's recreation attempt. Instead, it appears to be from Beckjord's recreation attempt.

 

[bruto]

Historian and monstro's paranormal Bigfoot theory may have some capable supporters.

Short documentary released on the anniversary of the PGF.

"Marginalized within the marginal field of bigfoot research" indeed.

 

[Dfoot]

Actually, everything Bob Heironimus recalled about the suit turns out to be EXACTLY the kind of things found in Patty and the suits of the day.

Bob H. had no idea where it came from other than what he heard from his brother after Patterson had taken credit for making it himself. Turns out this was yet another in a long line of tall tales from the scampy con man.

Whether Patty was cannibalized together at PROJECT UNLIMITED or at one of their home studios, the work was performed for a price. These studios are long gone now. Should we pretend they never existed? Would that help?

It does seem that if a hoaxer tells a Patty-fan what he wants to hear then that's all it takes. So.... PROJECT UNLIMITED never existed and suits were not invented until after 1967. (*That should make someones day)

My own theory about the vanished Bigfoot breed is this (and it is speculative only) --- Squatches began drinking at some point....



The Squatches began to pass out ...

... while watching Bigfoot cablevision.
And their hats were stolen by a pack of white devil dogs known as the Hat-collector-mah.

The end.

 

[bf2006]

Fair enough but weren't you on a patio? Also I think your mention of people in the area knowing about your interest in BF explains a lot but if you had an interest in bigfoot and POW, there's one! wouldn't that be all the more reason for you not to take off?Did you ask the residents if they've seen any dirty-white 8ft gorillas? And on top of that, it's '98, you've been into bigfoot for forever, you think you may have seen one in Georgia, you're driving on the highway in Mississippi not even in the forest, and POW, there's a big, white one standing in front of somebody's house and you... keep driving?

Hi, Kitikaze. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I don't know why I kept driving, to be honest. If I had it to do over again, I would probably have stayed and tried to pursue the creature (of course at a safe distance). As to the first encounter, I do wish I had stuck around for that too, but I really can't do much about it now, unless someone builds a time machine and I encourage my younger selves to do something differently, LOL Anyway, hope this answers your questions, Kitikaze. Merry Christmas to all on the JREF Forum.

 

[Geno]

Dfoot, can you comment on the bad smell that Bob H said the head of the costume had?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Not so fast, Sweaty... This is the chain of reasoning.

- A skeleton can be draw inside costumes and cartoon characters.

- Costumes can significantly change human proportions.

- Measurements made in images, without the propper calibrations can be very imprecise; the exact location of articulations, for example, is doubtfull.

These three issues alone are enough to render all the arguments about Patty's alleged inhuman proportions as inconclusive at best. They may be interesting to chat about and make some informal comments. And thats as far as one should go.

Do not forget the anedoctal evidence regarding Patterson buying and modifying a gorilla suit to play a prank on someone and the other issues raised by other posters, such as the contradictions and timeline. With this in mind, one can, should not, must not use data derived from the PGF to back somehow the "bigfeet are real" claim. This will never become good science. It is, and will always be, junk science.

I'll ask again:
Can you counter these arguments? Can you offer a single good reason why consider PGF is not a fraud?

And at last but not least, Patty's digital skeleton is not a "what if" creation for some footers and you know this. Its presented as something that explains Patty's IM and alleged inhuman gait. Its quite often presented as something that adds credibility and weight to the "Patty is a real bigfoot" claim. This is how it was exposed at LMS. Feel free to show evidence I am wrong.

I'll respond to more of your post later, when I have the time...but for now, I'll respond to just this question...

Can you offer a single good reason why consider PGF is not a fraud?

Sure....one very real reason is simply that NObody has ever re-created the realism of Patty on video...in motion...with a comparable view of the subject....i.e...seen from head-to-toe, from the side, back, and partially from the front...and with a good degree of resolution.

NO other video, or even photo, of a supposed Bigfoot, or a man in a Gorilla suit has been able to cause people.....ANYONE...to wonder whether or not it's a real creature, or a man-in-a-suit......for years on end.

Is this not true???


This is one reason to think there is a chance....some 'degree of probability'...that Patty is a real Bigfoot.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

NO other video, or even photo, of a supposed Bigfoot, or a man in a Gorilla suit has been able to cause people.....ANYONE...to wonder whether or not it's a real creature, or a man-in-a-suit......for years on end.

Is this not true???

Not true at all Sweety, by a long shot ..

The people who wonder whether it's a real creature or not, are usually younger than 6 or 7 years old... The same people who aren't sure about Barney and Big Bird ...

Beyond that, it's a case of The Emperor's New Clothes .. People like Meldrum, who have painted themselves into a Footery corner..