Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Ravenwood]

IIRC, There was a picture posted on the BFF board of "patty" that had been photoshopped into another background & claimed to be a duplicate of the suit, & there was all sorts of claims how it wasn't the same, obviously a fake, not as real, etc... until someone pointed out that it was the real patty with the background changed...I'm pretty sure that even if you had the suit & film of BH taking the mask off, they would refuse to believe it.

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh, one important thing to be taken in to account regarding Munn's ideas:

What he would be his approach to build a Patty.

From his first posts, I would suspect something related to or heavilly relying in animatronics. This would be very expensive and unpractical when it comes to performing the hoax at Bluff Creek. I suspect Patty was pretty much low-tech, not unlike the vintage gorilla costumes we've been seeing at this thread.

Aniway, he's pretty dead on spot when he says Gimlim must have been a part of the hoax.

 

[GT/CS]

reply:

when there are so many imposssibles to refute, like track depth.
the wrist band is meaningless.

Please explain why it is meaningless, other than that it is meaningless to you because it blows your world apart. Anything you, and the other bigfooters, wish to ignore just becomes meaningless and it goes away?

Maybe Patty told a hiker's wristwatch after she killed him?

 

[SweatyYeti]

IIRC, There was a picture posted on the BFF board of "patty" that had been photoshopped into another background & claimed to be a duplicate of the suit, & there was all sorts of claims how it wasn't the same, obviously a fake, not as real, etc... until someone pointed out that it was the real patty with the background changed...I'm pretty sure that even if you had the suit & film of BH taking the mask off, they would refuse to believe it.

"All sorts of claims"???
From what I remember...there were 2 or 3 people who said something to that effect....and then someone pointed out that it was as trick by Dfoot.

It was not exactly a "major survey" of the psychological state of Bigfoot proponents.

 

[Dfoot]

"All sorts of claims"???
From what I remember...there were 2 or 3 people who said something to that effect....and then someone pointed out that it was as trick by Dfoot.

It was not exactly a "major survey" of the psychological state of Bigfoot proponents.

Ravenwood is almost right. Good job.

Here's what happened....

I kept getting the usual remarks and I suggested that people seemed to have turned this "Patty" thing into sort of a religious icon. I felt they could not really judge accurately what they were seeing when it came to suits.

To prove this point I posted a rarely seen pic of Patty and flipped it. I made the hair black, straightened the bent arm, and then composited it onto a neighborhood street. I told them it was my neighbor walking in a suit I was working on.

Of course, I got all the comments I expected about how it wasn't NEARLY as good or realistic as Patty. I then posted clearer and closer pics from Patty's "greatest hits" and got similar replies.

FINALLY I posted a clear close-up shot of Patty's back directly from Legend Meets Science. ONLY THEN did ONE PERSON say, "Hey... wait a second... isn't that???"

You see I had to practically beat them over the head with shots of "Patty not being as good as Patty" to make the point. Guess what happened then? You got it. A chorus of, "I knew it was a fake all along! You're only fooling yourself!" etc...

But the point had been made.

Yet today I find even this tale cannot be told as it actually happened without changing it to fit some other notion of how things should be. It was a simple psychological test that revealed a great deal about how this suit really works. It's a Bigfoot the way a stain is the mother of Jesus.


This is the frame I used. It is not found on the LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE "full frame" version. That's why I chose it.

The reaction spoke for itself. Patty is no Patty unless we believe it is.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Can you provide a link to the BFF thread, Dfoot?
It'd probably take you less time to find it than it would me.

 

[Monza]

I remember following this at the time and reading the various comments. As Dfoot says, it was an interesting look at the psychological aspect of belief.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

................

[/URL]
This is the frame I used. It is not found on the LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE "full frame" version. That's why I chose it.

A couple of interesting points about that frame..

No compliant leg lift ..

No disproportionate looking right arm ..

Oh wait !
Patty is standing almost straight up !

Is she allowed to do that ?

P.S.

With a second look, I see the left arm looks pretty normal also .. What's up with that ?

 

[mangler]

MOTS quote,

"By the way, there's a costume expert now at BFF. Bill Munn or something.
I'm sure his points will be well taken there. He's even offered himself for questions, so unless you're ashamed, I'll be in the peanut gallery to observe all the informative questions and answers presented."


Bill Munns will by no means offer anything new on the PGF. It will be the same opinion/speculation that he has had for the last 6 or 7 years.

Once again MOTS you have clearly demonstrated that you are so far behind you think you're in first.



BTW, below actor Brian Peck answers a couple of questions in regards to Bill Munns work on the Night of the Living Dead.

"How many extras played zombies in ROTLD - do you recall?

No idea. Probably 25 extras were out there during the 1st few weeks of shooting. We did all the location stuff first. And everyone either had mud on their face or had those crappy Bill Munns masks. It’s a shame that Kenny Myers wasn’t hired before him, since Bill Stout had such wonderful designs for different zombies."

"Was the makeup by Bill Munns as bad as Dan says they were?

No - it was worse. No one liked the makeup he did. It wasn’t even like…real makeup. The masks he made were unfilmable. Put it this way: your average junior high reader of Fangoria can do better - 1000 times better. You know what they were like? They were as thin as rubber gloves, painted brown, with eyeholes cut out. Munns wanted to put a bald cap and attach hair to it to make a mohawk. I was like, no shave my head and give me a real mohawk!"


Another BTW, stay the HELL out of my Peanut Gallery!


References upon request



m

 

[manofthesea]

Roll 2-15

MOTS quote,

"By the way, there's a costume expert now at BFF. Bill Munn or something.
I'm sure his points will be well taken there. He's even offered himself for questions, so unless you're ashamed, I'll be in the peanut gallery to observe all the informative questions and answers presented."


Bill Munns will by no means offer anything new on the PGF. It will be the same opinion/speculation that he has had for the last 6 or 7 years.

Once again MOTS you have clearly demonstrated that you are so far behind you think you're in first.



BTW, below actor Brian Peck answers a couple of questions in regards to Bill Munns work on the Night of the Living Dead.

"How many extras played zombies in ROTLD - do you recall?

No idea. Probably 25 extras were out there during the 1st few weeks of shooting. We did all the location stuff first. And everyone either had mud on their face or had those crappy Bill Munns masks. It’s a shame that Kenny Myers wasn’t hired before him, since Bill Stout had such wonderful designs for different zombies."

"Was the makeup by Bill Munns as bad as Dan says they were?

No - it was worse. No one liked the makeup he did. It wasn’t even like…real makeup. The masks he made were unfilmable. Put it this way: your average junior high reader of Fangoria can do better - 1000 times better. You know what they were like? They were as thin as rubber gloves, painted brown, with eyeholes cut out. Munns wanted to put a bald cap and attach hair to it to make a mohawk. I was like, no shave my head and give me a real mohawk!"


Another BTW, stay the HELL out of my Peanut Gallery!


References upon request



m

I see that you've gone over the edge also. Don't worry, I won't make any loud noises.

You're a member at BFF. Don't bang your chest here. Go tell Munns yourself.
Unless you're just a bunch of hot (sociopathic) air.

List jealousy, isn't it? You've done nothing to merit recommendation.

And Drew, sorry, but no fence sitters.

 

[manofthesea]

Its not the first time that lacking sound arguments and reliable evidence, a bigfoot proponent appeals to the "you are not brave enough to come to my neighbourhood" line. This can not masquerade the fact that so far not a single piece of reliable evidence supporting their claims was brought to light.

You should perhaps be aware that Dfoot and Diogenes are BFF members. Stay tuned, for there are some people there that are critics of PGF.

I'll lurk around and see if something interesting shows up. So far, nothing.

In the meanwhile, I'll say a couple of things.

1. There are FX experts who claim Patty could be -and actually was- a costume. Some of them worked back in the 60s. If Munns says it could not, well, its up to hims to propperly back his position. And its up for us to check his arguments and make a decision. This is the key point. His reasoning, his arguments- if they can resist evaluation, then they will be OK. His credentials alone are not enough. Appeals to authority are useless here. Its a pity its not like this everywhere else. The same is valid for everyone else- Meldrum included, in case you have not noticed.

2. For now, I'll stick to my opinion: There's nothing in Patty that could not be reproduced by vintage FX tech and since PGF is surrounded by a fishy smell, I take it as a fraud. I'll also side with Ciochon opinion on bigfeet and yetis- they are not real. By now, you probably realized who Ciochon is.

You are not brave enough to come to my neighborhood. I live in Waianae, Hi.
I grew up in Beacon Hill, Seattle Wa. Stick to Sao Paulo.

I've never argued for Patty. I'm not appealing to authority. You like to discuss Patty. A real costume expert is at BFF.

Your opinion is meaningless. You should argue Santa Claus with little children.

 

[manofthesea]

Oh, one important thing to be taken in to account regarding Munn's ideas:

What he would be his approach to build a Patty.

From his first posts, I would suspect something related to or heavilly relying in animatronics. This would be very expensive and unpractical when it comes to performing the hoax at Bluff Creek. I suspect Patty was pretty much low-tech, not unlike the vintage gorilla costumes we've been seeing at this thread.

Aniway, he's pretty dead on spot when he says Gimlim must have been a part of the hoax.

You're asking the wrong people. The costume expert is at BFF.

What you suspect is meaningless. You're a Patty debunker. The costume would have to be according to 1967 methods. No animatronics, no computer generated graphics, etc.

 

[LTC8K6]

A couple of interesting points about that frame..

Indeed...

There's that very short stride, too.

 

[mangler]

MOTS,

Don't get your feathers in a ruffle because you're lightyears behind the curve ball. I personally appreciate most of Bills work, though I must admit that I am far more familiar with his work using Bryce than anything he has done on the big screen. The main problem I have is with his sculpt of Giganto and it's association with bigfoot (not necessarily by him), how the hell could that thing turn into patty in 300,000 years?

Nothing personal about the dig MOTS, maybe I was simply upset because I wasn't included in JREF bigfooters club, but now that I seem to have gone over the edge as well as been labeled a sociopath I feel better. Thanks for the compliment.

Go Warriors


m

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

The question is a leading question and therefore has no real answer.

The truth of the matter is, LTC...you can't answer the question.....because you have no backbone....and no personal integrity.


Here are some other questions I've asked you, that you can't answer....

Do you know that Patty is a man in a suit?

If so...how do you know that, without having PROOF which can be demonstrated to the general public?


When have I stated that "I know Patty is inhuman"?

It's a pleasure watching skeptics refuse to answer questions. It happens rather frequently with these "critical thinkers" .....and is a sign of fear...pure and simple.

LTC wrote...falsely:

I have never misrepresented anything sweaty said.

You sure have, pal!

Example #1...

Yet sweaty knows Patty is "inhuman"...which means sweaty has eliminated "human" somehow,

Example #2...

Oh! You meant Patty was a human with an inhuman arm!

Both statements are misrepresentations of what I've said in my posts.

LTC....a true BS artist!

BTW...LTC admitted to misrepresenting my statements, in this quote of his...

I'm sorry. My mistake. I apologize.

 

[SweatyYeti]

I Am He wrote:

Sweaty, What are you talking about: "Why have you TWICE misrepresented what I've said?" Did your reading comprehension go completely haywire??

Yes...by all means...go ahead and put the eggs in first, and whip it up...then you can add in the sugar and molasses. One last thing.....don't forget the bullshiz!!

 

[Correa Neto]

You are not brave enough to come to my neighborhood. I live in Waianae, Hi.
I grew up in Beacon Hill, Seattle Wa. Stick to Sao Paulo.

I've never argued for Patty. I'm not appealing to authority. You like to discuss Patty. A real costume expert is at BFF.

Your opinion is meaningless. You should argue Santa Claus with little children.

Stick to São Paulo? Sorry, but I don't even live there. Well, at least your spelling seems to be improving.

Got reliable evidence or sound reasonings to back your claims?
No?
Only "you aren't brave enough to play at my park" lines?

Sorry, but such an approach is... Meaningless. You should stop trying to discuss with adults if that's all you've got.

You're asking the wrong people. The costume expert is at BFF.

What you suspect is meaningless. You're a Patty debunker. The costume would have to be according to 1967 methods. No animatronics, no computer generated graphics, etc.

You should try getting your facts straight first, unless you want your posts to be meaningless. Animatronics were in use in the 60s. Their first use in a movie that I am aware of is from the 50's, (20 000 Leagues Under the Sea), and were used in Disney thematic parks in the 60s.

 

[manofthesea]

Getting To Be a Habit

You should try getting your facts straight first, unless you want your posts to be meaningless. Animatronics were in use in the 60s. Their first use in a movie that I am aware of is from the 50's, (20 000 Leagues Under the Sea), and were used in Disney thematic parks in the 60s.

Wrong, dear old fool.

That was basic robotics. Animatronics was first used with the dinorsaur exhibit that toured the US museums in the 80's and 90's.

 

[manofthesea]

Backtracking

MOTS,

Don't get your feathers in a ruffle because you're lightyears behind the curve ball. I personally appreciate most of Bills work, though I must admit that I am far more familiar with his work using Bryce than anything he has done on the big screen. The main problem I have is with his sculpt of Giganto and it's association with bigfoot (not necessarily by him), how the hell could that thing turn into patty in 300,000 years?

Nothing personal about the dig MOTS, maybe I was simply upset because I wasn't included in JREF bigfooters club, but now that I seem to have gone over the edge as well as been labeled a sociopath I feel better. Thanks for the compliment.

Go Warriors


m

A pitiful backtrack.

Imua

 

[mangler]

In response to Imua. PICK UP THE PACE!


m