-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
Dfoot
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 164
Dfoot wrote:
Dfoot....I don't give a rat's as_ HOW, when, where, or why you put together whatever you put together. I really don't.
Any images you post here are "fair game" for highlighting, and analysing, by me.
You're free to make a counter-argument, if you like.
For instance...why don't you post a moving image of a padded suit which can compare equally with Patty's arm, as far as it's inhuman length, upper/lower arm proportions, and finger movement?
(Reportedly...this should be a VERY simple task.)
As far as your 'still images' of padded suits go.....they don't amount to a hill of beans. They are, for all practical purposes, sculptures , and anything can be copied as a sculpture.
They have no meaning whatsoever, unless and until those padded suits can duplicate Patty in motion.
Morning Sweat - Thanks for the input. You are right in that it is a simple task to post moving pics (as I've recently learned). Yet the still images I just posted were made for you to learn from so that you could begin to think about how such a suit as "Patty" might work.
I observed an argument on the BFF once with an Academy award winning creature fx artist about such things as Patty's butt moving and all that. He said that perhaps we should change our viewpoint and investigate it from the perspective of it being somebody's attempt at imitating body parts rather than from the assumption that it must be real so how let's see if it matches anything ape or human.
Something struck me about this argument. We were arguing with a man who was indeed an expert in this area while we were grasping at the theories posited by those who made a career out of the flick, or those who lived in little metal boxes so he could hunt Patty full time. Meanwhile, for some reason, Patterson himself never looked for Patty again. Strange all that.
Maybe we should at least consider the opinions of creature fx experts over those of college teachers, or professional bigfoot writers, or eccentrics who have absolutely no skills or experience with creature suits.
So.... I can surely post moving images of suits with long arms if you wish. I once even directed a scene with moving rat's asses (I'm not kidding here) and I could post that as well. Still, it won't matter to you as I'm sure as you're in the zone. That zone the mind wanders into when a desire that something be real overtakes common sense.
I cannot convince Tom Cruise that by spending tons of bucks on Scientology to reach level seven he still has not truly rid himself of Thetans that do not exist. For in his mind they are very real. Yet the only Thetan I can guarantee is real is the one played by Janos Prohaska on television. No reasonable argument can get through to a mind that sealed off.
Try to think outside of the Bigfoot box (or trap). It may well be based on something real. We don't know for certain. But we can show over and over why the PG film is Bob H. in a suit. Just try working both sides of the argument and see which one seems more likely. Good luck.
And here's some more pics for you for now----
Here Vulich used 1920's arm technology with 1960's skin technology and the usual head make-up. The muscles moved and I could not figure out how. It wasn't even fuzzy.
Yet in this awkward moment I spotted something. YES! The "hip wader" phenomenon! As he falls the line of the leg pads seem to show. I think this may be a clue to us that the cave dweller could be a man in a suit. (Years of investigation may or may not prove this. I mean, where's the suit?)I can honestly tell you that through extensive enhancements I've determined that the chest-arm tie in seems TOO REAL to be simply a suit. Further close examination reveals a lack of male genitalia, which leads me to the conclusion that this may be a young female who lacks mammary development.
Tomorrow I'm leading a expedition of 60 people into Forbidden Cave. At $300 a person I expect something to happen that's worthwhile. Maybe Cave Dweller poop on the walls that can be studied? Who knows? Noises? Maybe. I only know it'll be worth the effort.
Last edited:
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Dfoot wrote:
To be a little more precise....
Thanks in advance, Dfoot! We'll be looking for that video.
Just one more thing....can you make the video large enough so that we don't need to use our binocs to see it??
To be a little more precise....
Thanks in advance, Dfoot! We'll be looking for that video.
Just one more thing....can you make the video large enough so that we don't need to use our binocs to see it??
Dfoot questions the veracity of Heironimus, Korff and Morris in regard to the Patterson-Gimlin Suit when no two co-conspirator's stories match. Heironimus's story doesn't even match with his own mother's story, for heavens sake.
Skeptical Inquirer Jan. 1. 2005
by Michael Dennett
We pick up the action here:
As a CSICOP Scientific and Technical Consultant, I feel that the Korff article may have overstated some of the issues. Having followed Sasquatch activities in the Pacific Northwest for over twenty years, I am well aware of the key issues related to the Patterson film, and many of the people in the Long book are individuals I have met or talked with over the years. (3) I believe it would be more accurate to state that Long has found a man, Bob Heironimus, who has provided a most credible case he was the man in an ape suit in the Patterson film. But The Making of Bigfoot does not, as Korff suggests, prove Heironimus's case. While I find Heironimus believable, there are glaring problems with the tale, and SI editor Ken Frazier has granted me this space to present a second perspective.
Significantly, Heironimus has no objective evidence that he was Roger Patterson's accomplice, despite a claim made to Long that he could prove he played the creature in the film. He does not have the "ape suit" or any other objective evidence. One of the two witnesses to Heironimus's brief possession of the "ape suit" was an eight-year-old boy at the time, and the other is Heironimus's mother. Some of the corroborating witness accounts are completely contradictory as well. Several people interviewed by Long claim that Heironimus showed them the "ape suit," a claim Heironimus strongly denies.
These conflicting testimonies show the weaknesses of such accounts and why as skeptics we must be cautious. If we are to believe the Heironimus account (and it is most plausible), how do we incorporate the other statements, made by honest-sounding individuals, who say they saw an ape suit in Heironimus's car when he clearly says they didn't?
.......
Korff tells us that Philip Morris, "who made and sold the Bigfoot costume that Patterson used to fake his movie," has confessed. The impression Korff leaves is that the Heironimus and Morris accounts agree, but they don't, at least not to me. Heironimus says that Patterson made the costume from a red horsehide, while Morris says his suit was made of an artificial fiber. Heironimus, who owned his own horse and went to rodeos, would presumably know the difference between horsehide and nylon fibers. Heironimus said the suit consisted of three parts: a bottom, a midsection, and a head, while Morris says the suit consisted of six parts, one for each limb, a middle section, and a head. Morris says the feet bottoms in his costume were black, yet they are white in the film. Morris says the arms could be extended by using sticks for the gloves, whereas Heironimus says nothing about any arm extensions. In fact, if the Morris costume had "gloves" it would have consisted of eight parts, not the three described by Heironimus.
Korff then goes on to explain: "Morris distinctly told Patterson how to hide this zipper from view, advising him to comb down the fur on the suit with a brush. Sure enough, this Bigfoot, a wild creature presumably living in the wilderness, is remarkably clean and carefully groomed." I don't know how many wild animals Korff has seen, but of the hundreds I have had the chance to observe, including a big black bear last year, I cannot remember a single unkempt animal.
Perhaps a bigger problem with the Morris story is Patterson paying for a suit even though Long's book spends at least a hundred pages explaining how talented Patterson was at making things and how he seldom paid for anything, especially something he could construct for himself. As a skeptic, I am unable to accept Morris's story, for I find the account of Patterson's resourcefulness, artistic capabilities, and lack of capital much more believable.
..........
What the two accounts by Morris and Heironimus illustrate is how convincing both accounts can be, when only one can be correct.
Skeptical Inquirer Jan. 1. 2005
by Michael Dennett
We pick up the action here:
As a CSICOP Scientific and Technical Consultant, I feel that the Korff article may have overstated some of the issues. Having followed Sasquatch activities in the Pacific Northwest for over twenty years, I am well aware of the key issues related to the Patterson film, and many of the people in the Long book are individuals I have met or talked with over the years. (3) I believe it would be more accurate to state that Long has found a man, Bob Heironimus, who has provided a most credible case he was the man in an ape suit in the Patterson film. But The Making of Bigfoot does not, as Korff suggests, prove Heironimus's case. While I find Heironimus believable, there are glaring problems with the tale, and SI editor Ken Frazier has granted me this space to present a second perspective.
Significantly, Heironimus has no objective evidence that he was Roger Patterson's accomplice, despite a claim made to Long that he could prove he played the creature in the film. He does not have the "ape suit" or any other objective evidence. One of the two witnesses to Heironimus's brief possession of the "ape suit" was an eight-year-old boy at the time, and the other is Heironimus's mother. Some of the corroborating witness accounts are completely contradictory as well. Several people interviewed by Long claim that Heironimus showed them the "ape suit," a claim Heironimus strongly denies.
These conflicting testimonies show the weaknesses of such accounts and why as skeptics we must be cautious. If we are to believe the Heironimus account (and it is most plausible), how do we incorporate the other statements, made by honest-sounding individuals, who say they saw an ape suit in Heironimus's car when he clearly says they didn't?
.......
Korff tells us that Philip Morris, "who made and sold the Bigfoot costume that Patterson used to fake his movie," has confessed. The impression Korff leaves is that the Heironimus and Morris accounts agree, but they don't, at least not to me. Heironimus says that Patterson made the costume from a red horsehide, while Morris says his suit was made of an artificial fiber. Heironimus, who owned his own horse and went to rodeos, would presumably know the difference between horsehide and nylon fibers. Heironimus said the suit consisted of three parts: a bottom, a midsection, and a head, while Morris says the suit consisted of six parts, one for each limb, a middle section, and a head. Morris says the feet bottoms in his costume were black, yet they are white in the film. Morris says the arms could be extended by using sticks for the gloves, whereas Heironimus says nothing about any arm extensions. In fact, if the Morris costume had "gloves" it would have consisted of eight parts, not the three described by Heironimus.
Korff then goes on to explain: "Morris distinctly told Patterson how to hide this zipper from view, advising him to comb down the fur on the suit with a brush. Sure enough, this Bigfoot, a wild creature presumably living in the wilderness, is remarkably clean and carefully groomed." I don't know how many wild animals Korff has seen, but of the hundreds I have had the chance to observe, including a big black bear last year, I cannot remember a single unkempt animal.
Perhaps a bigger problem with the Morris story is Patterson paying for a suit even though Long's book spends at least a hundred pages explaining how talented Patterson was at making things and how he seldom paid for anything, especially something he could construct for himself. As a skeptic, I am unable to accept Morris's story, for I find the account of Patterson's resourcefulness, artistic capabilities, and lack of capital much more believable.
..........
What the two accounts by Morris and Heironimus illustrate is how convincing both accounts can be, when only one can be correct.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Like this ?......................
Just one more thing....can you make the video large enough so that we don't need to use our binocs to see it??
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Why should we let you get away with talking about those claims as if they were factual?
Why do you get to talk as if those claims have been proven?
You don't.
There's nothing inhuman about Patty at all until you prove it. Period.
When you prove that something about Patty is inhuman, then you may proceed with a line of questioning regarding what you've proven to be inhuman about Patty.
You cannot just waltz in with questions assuming inhuman characteristics.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Diogenes wrote:
No...like this...
It's amazing, that from such a tiny image, we can actually see Patty's fingers moving....
No...like this...
It's amazing, that from such a tiny image, we can actually see Patty's fingers moving....
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Who's "we"? I don't actually see any fingers at all, much less any moving ones.
I have stipulated the point for the sake of argument, though.
It's amazing what people will claim to see. I'll give you that.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
LTC8K6 wrote:
Prove something to skeptics, like you, LTC???
Here is a BEE-autiful example of why proving, or showing 'evidence for' something.....on this board.....is a colossal waste of time.
Quoting you....after you viewed this clip...
Do you have any idea what that thing is, that looks just like a hand....on the end of the arm might be, LTC???
LTC8K6 wrote:
Basically, my little crybaby....it's called "freedom of speech".
If you think something I've said is wrong, then feel free to SHOW the world why it's wrong.
This is an open discussion board, LTC....by all means GO AHEAD and contribute to our understanding of the truth concerning the evidence for and against Bigfoot's existence.
Prove something to skeptics, like you, LTC???
Here is a BEE-autiful example of why proving, or showing 'evidence for' something.....on this board.....is a colossal waste of time.
Quoting you....after you viewed this clip...
I don't actually see any fingers at all, much less any moving ones.
Do you have any idea what that thing is, that looks just like a hand....on the end of the arm might be, LTC???
LTC8K6 wrote:
Basically, my little crybaby....it's called "freedom of speech".
If you think something I've said is wrong, then feel free to SHOW the world why it's wrong.
This is an open discussion board, LTC....by all means GO AHEAD and contribute to our understanding of the truth concerning the evidence for and against Bigfoot's existence.
Last edited:
RayG
Master Poster
Anyone see any individual fingers? Patty may have been wearing mittens for all we can tell.
RayG
RayG
LTC8K6 wrote:
Prove something to skeptics, like you, LTC???
Here is a BEE-autiful example of why proving, or showing 'evidence for' something.....on this board.....is a colossal waste of time.
Quoting you....after you viewed this clip...
[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/handmove1.gif[/qimg]
Do you have any idea what that thing is, that looks just like a hand....on the end of the arm might be, LTC???
LTC8K6 wrote:
Basically, my little crybaby....it's called "freedom of speech".
If you think something I've said is wrong, then feel free to SHOW the world why it's wrong.
This is an open discussion board, LTC....by all means GO AHEAD and contribute to our understanding of the truth concerning the evidence for and against Bigfoot's existence.
Sweaty, are you insane?
You ignore my requests to explain the wrist band then you post the same picture that clearly shows the band in an effort to prove moving fingers.
Don't you get it? A wrist band trumps moving fingers every time. Moving fingers do not prove a real animal but a wrist band certainly does prove a bloke in a suit.
Good gawd, man, all you've done is proven my point for me!
Thank you
RayG
Master Poster
You talking about skeptics or proponents histo? What's good for the goose...
RayG
RayG
doctoratlantis
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 186
Gender Request?
These photos are pretty good, but they show a dude. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer my squatch with a bit more feminine look.
If you know what I mean.
You got any a bit less flat-chested?
How can I believe in suits that show similar muscle articulation, but don't have pendulous ape-boobs? That's not science. At least not the kind I like to download and study... <snicker>
These photos are pretty good, but they show a dude. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer my squatch with a bit more feminine look.
If you know what I mean.
You got any a bit less flat-chested?
How can I believe in suits that show similar muscle articulation, but don't have pendulous ape-boobs? That's not science. At least not the kind I like to download and study... <snicker>
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Sweaty keeps trying to get me to just accept as fact that Patty is a sasquatch so that he can ask me leading questions.
Any arm inside a suit can appear inhuman, sweaty. Appearances can be deceiving, as they are meant to be in sasquatch suits. So your lines and circles and arrows and animations are only illustrating what a man in a suit looks like.
If you want to assume that it's an inhuman sasquatch arm, rather than a human arm in suit, go right ahead. However, you cannot ask questions which asssume facts that are not in evidence, and then crow when you "stump" the skeptics.
Patty is a man in a suit, until shown otherwise.
Several people have pointed out many suitlike characteristics, which sweaty makes no attempt whatsoever to even address.
This has gone on for years.
Sweaty has never pointed out anything that is not characteristic of a man in a suit.
Any arm inside a suit can appear inhuman, sweaty. Appearances can be deceiving, as they are meant to be in sasquatch suits. So your lines and circles and arrows and animations are only illustrating what a man in a suit looks like.
If you want to assume that it's an inhuman sasquatch arm, rather than a human arm in suit, go right ahead. However, you cannot ask questions which asssume facts that are not in evidence, and then crow when you "stump" the skeptics.
Patty is a man in a suit, until shown otherwise.
Several people have pointed out many suitlike characteristics, which sweaty makes no attempt whatsoever to even address.
This has gone on for years.
Sweaty has never pointed out anything that is not characteristic of a man in a suit.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
RayG wrote:
Hey Ray.....here's what LTC said....
LTC cannot see any fingers AT ALL........none.
So, what is your point concerning "individual fingers"???
Is there a law against an animal having it's fingers tight together??
Does that mean it has to be a "suit"?
Here is the real question.....which I noticed LTC failed to answer...
The fact of the matter is....it's a hand....with fingers....that move. It's as simple as that........except to a blind skeptic.
Hey Ray.....here's what LTC said....
I don't actually see any fingers at all
LTC cannot see any fingers AT ALL........none.
So, what is your point concerning "individual fingers"???
Is there a law against an animal having it's fingers tight together??
Does that mean it has to be a "suit"?
Here is the real question.....which I noticed LTC failed to answer...
The fact of the matter is....it's a hand....with fingers....that move. It's as simple as that........except to a blind skeptic.
Last edited:
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,752
RayG wrote:
Is there a law against an animal having it's fingers tight together??
Does that mean it has to be a "suit"?
The fact of the matter is....it's a hand....with fingers....that move. It's as simple as that........except to a blind skeptic.
What part of this shows me that it is not a suit?
Do you see why, for the sake of argument, LTC gave you the fingers? Because it doesn't affect whether or not it is a man in a suit. You are shouting about fingers, but what are you saying? that only a real beast can have fingers? Have your fingers, and show that it is not a costume.
- Status