kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Sweaty, can you hear that? It's the sound of page #305. It's calling to you. It sings to you. It says "Don't leave me hanging, baby." It doesn't want you to neglect it. #305 needs love too.
Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
For the record, I have read nothing from Bill Munn at BFF as far as I know. Unless it was quoted here, I haven't read it.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,491
Crowlogic said:
Diogenes said:
Crow, I do not think you understand the context of what BH is talking about. The 'red horsehide' is a red herring when it is used as some sort of evidence that BH wasn't in the suit. I don't think anyone can look at Patty in the PGF and make definitive statements about the materials that were used in the creation of the suit (assuming that it is a suit). If it isn't a suit (and is instead a Bigfoot), then obviously a costumed BH (or anyone else) is not what we are seeing in the PGF. You cannot remove BH from the equation based upon what he believes are the materials that were used. He must be given the opportunity to be wrong or misled about the materials that were used. This does not mean that his testimonies about this should be totally ignored either. These same kinds of latitudes must also be extended to Bob Gimlin. The relevant sequence of events (surrounding the PGF) happened about 40 years ago. BG should be expected to not remember certain details regardless of if it was a hoax or not. He should also be allowed to have been wrong or misled about certain details (even in 1967).
John Green has taken BH out of context, and has reinterpreted BH's opinions about the suit as if they were some kind of factual information. The most blatently malicious reinterpretation is when Green converts BH's testimony about the feet from "they were like house slippers" to "they were house slippers"! Like so many other Bigfooters, Green cannot be trusted to give it to you straight. I hope I am just misinformed about that.
The whole issue of the 'red horsehide' is based upon something that Howard Heironimus (HH) told his brother Bob. We know that both of these men were involved in Patterson's 'Bigfoot documentary film', and we can see them in the actors shot along with Patterson and the wigged Gimlin.
The issue is based upon heresay. HH told BH that RP informed him that the Bigfoot suit was made by him using the hide of a dead 'red horse'. The term 'red' was commonly used by these different Yakima guys to denote a horse of dark brown color. Others might not choose to use that term (and instead just say dark brown), but it probably doesn't matter much in the bigger picture.
From where we stand at the moment, we can't really know if RP said anything like this to HH. We also can't really know if HH said anything about this to BH. We only have what BH has said on the record(s). We are left to try to interpret the testimonies of BH, the context of these, and what it may mean overall.
If RP actually did tell HH that he made the Patty suit from red horsehide, it presents two interesting things. First, is that RP declared the material he used (he could have been lying about that). Second, is that RP confessed to HH about making the suit (he could have been lying about that too) and consequently hoaxing a filmed Bigfoot. RP never publicly confessed to faking Patty - but it is possible that he did do this with certain individuals in private.
The red herring comes from Bigfooters who are pro-Patty/anti-BH who contort the true context of the issue. They focus on the red horsehide material and present their position as if BH independantly determined that the suit was made from red horsehide. Sorta like... BH puts on the suit and says to himself "Hmmm, I can see that this suit is made from red horsehide." That is not what BH was, or is, saying. He is repeating what his brother told him as if it may have been the truth (as told to HH by RP).
The more honest argument that could come from Bigfooters would be different. They would not focus so much on the stated material used, but instead would try to argue that RP did not confess in any form to HH in the first place. Or, that HH did not say these things to BH in the first place.
The important thing to know is that Bob Heironimus is not truly saying that the suit was truly made from red horsehide. However, he is allowing that the actual face mask 'skin' may have been made from hide from a dead horse. He could be wrong about that, but it is nonetheless what he is thinking.
sgoodman72
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 64
I love how the style of talk and discussion has changed on this thread since Bill's arrival. I didn't think that was possible with all our critical thinkers. Apparently to some JREF skeptics, the only people worth engaging and taking seriously have expansive resumes. I don't wish to call anyone out because most are staying true to form (sort of...), but I find other behavior changes and humbleness laughable. I am a recent skeptic as well, but will listen to arguments from anyone on either side before idly and arrogantly brushing them aside.
It's refreshing to finally read ACTUAL discussion and analysis of the PG Footage rather than endless bantering and Sweaty-bashing and clarifications on words. Even if it is rifle and wig discussion.....(thanks WP), but at least that's something of substance! Honestly. That's the reason I came here, and that's what this thread should be about.
Look out we're in Thunderdome!!! (Unless you're Bill Munns).
Seriously though, welcome Bill, I really enjoy your work.
It's refreshing to finally read ACTUAL discussion and analysis of the PG Footage rather than endless bantering and Sweaty-bashing and clarifications on words. Even if it is rifle and wig discussion.....(thanks WP), but at least that's something of substance! Honestly. That's the reason I came here, and that's what this thread should be about.
Look out we're in Thunderdome!!! (Unless you're Bill Munns).
Seriously though, welcome Bill, I really enjoy your work.
Last edited:
From those statements may we assume you have not read the entire thread?
Creekfreak
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 796
No sgoodman this is the rumble in the jungle rope a dope Bill !! Ding Ding round one goes to the Hollywood Monster Man ! Boys why dont you just give up now before you make biger fools of yourselfs then you allready have .
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Bill Munn is not here to make a fool of anyone, Creek.
Creek, someone who has been so thoroughly trashed as you have been at so many boards and in so many threads, by your own words and deeds, should not call anyone a fool.
Go back and invent a better Weed Eater. Perhaps a combination Weed Eater and Bungee cord?
devnull
Philosopher
devnull
Philosopher
Youll probably notice that over the next few pages CF that Bill will distance himself from you. I get the impression that Bill is a BF-believer here to present his case as if he's coming from a skeptical position (ie "I was an atheist until I found jesus!"). In other words, he is a BFer just like yourself, and yet he wont want to be on your 'team'.
There's something in that for you. Can you find it?
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Actually, I think that one of the points made is very important. The idea of a man in a suit is supposedly being decided on how real a suit could have been in 1967. According to one expert opinion, it could not have been done or it is unlikely. However, we are talking about realism based on a camera footage that may or may not record the event accurately. Some people see jaws moving/muscles/hair braids/butt cracks etc. while others see seams/wristbands/imperfections in a suit that was worn by a person. Film grain, lighting, age of the film, etc play a critical factor in the interpretation of the film's minute details, which seems to be where many of these "realism" details come from. These minute details can be subject to interpretation which implies a subjective opinion based on what analyst may or may not see. As now stated, the only way any comparison can be done is by recording a man in a suit under the same conditions and using the same equipment. Then one might be able to draw some comparisons but only a comparison. Nobody can ever duplicate the event frame for frame, film grain for film grain.
I don't think it would resolve the question one way or another. As I have previously stated, a bigfoot believer, knowing before hand the event was staged, will immediately state it does not look like the PGF and appears fake no matter how "real" it looks. If you want to prove that the PGF is not a man in a suit, then provide better evidence that bigfoot is a real creature.
I don't think it would resolve the question one way or another. As I have previously stated, a bigfoot believer, knowing before hand the event was staged, will immediately state it does not look like the PGF and appears fake no matter how "real" it looks. If you want to prove that the PGF is not a man in a suit, then provide better evidence that bigfoot is a real creature.
Crowlogic: Actually, natural mammal bone is tan in color. The white or whitish color you see in movies and TV is not real bone. You can however, bleach actual bone to make it white...
Also, in photo post #12255 above, by WP, from MK Davis, what is that supposed to be?
Who claimes that is a hair braid? Who claimes that the aforementioned "hair braid" is held in place by a bone clasp? Looks more like, I dunno, possibly some matted hair perhaps..it sure doesn't look braided to me..
Also, in photo post #12255 above, by WP, from MK Davis, what is that supposed to be?
Who claimes that is a hair braid? Who claimes that the aforementioned "hair braid" is held in place by a bone clasp? Looks more like, I dunno, possibly some matted hair perhaps..it sure doesn't look braided to me..
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
MK Davis has claimed to see all sorts of things on Patty, iirc. Braided hair is just one of many.
Here you can really see how fake Patty's fur is and what Heuvelmans is talking about.
http://searchingforbigfoot.com/images/photos/mk_davis_042006/MKwithcolorpatty.jpg
http://searchingforbigfoot.com/images/photos/mk_davis_042006/TBRCphoto2.jpg
Here you can really see how fake Patty's fur is and what Heuvelmans is talking about.
http://searchingforbigfoot.com/images/photos/mk_davis_042006/MKwithcolorpatty.jpg
http://searchingforbigfoot.com/images/photos/mk_davis_042006/TBRCphoto2.jpg
Last edited:
Bill Munns
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2008
- Messages
- 449
To all:
Busy night and morning. i will try to reply to each,
Devnull:
You seem to feel any such experimentation will fail to yield any usable data, in other words, a waste of time. I happen to believe experiments can potentially yield data that will add to our body of knowledge. I respect your position. Mine stands for me.
Ray: i agree, in the best of all worlds. In the mean time, we do what we can with what we have. Some people use "we don't have the perfect foundation so let's not begin" as a way to do nothing. I tend to be one why tries to start with the best I can get, and hope to continually improve the quality of the data or resource as i go.
LTC8K6:
Dr. Heuvelmans has neglected to mention that furcloth (artificial fur) generally has a "lay" a directional component of the lay of the fur, baked into the fabric fur pile, and so it doesn't bend or brush equally in every direction.
I would like to see how hair patterns on known animals do in fact photograph under the circumstances of a test I outlined, so we can say with more certainty if what's on the film has hair "pointing in all directions" as he claims.
Sweat Yeti:
Thank you for your comments. My primary philosophy in the above described test is simply that doing such tests will give us data we currently do not have. Whether it will resolve any issues cannot be determined until after we obtain it and study it.
Aepervius:
So your contention is "process of elimination" is not a scientific method? Fascinating.
You say "NO MATTER how extensive your knowledge, you cannot prove patty is a true bigfoot this way"
Did you read my premise in my first post? Did I say I am trying to prove Patty real? No, I said I was trying to determine if materials of the time can produce a figure as appears in the film, which is in motion. You are the one misunderstanding my premise. And as I have stated repeatedly, I still have not offered any conclusion. You are jumping to one.
LTC8K6
Your quote: "What is needed is the elimination of the suit possibility"
That is my premise and intent. Thank you for agreeing with me. Please tell that to Aepervius (above)
Mr. Parcher:
Well, my analytical work (as you quoted of me) is leading to "the option of a suit seems less and less likely." That is correct. And I have stated repeatedly I have not reached any conclusion yet and continue to study the issue. I have made no secret of my preplexity at the hip/pelvic area, in patricular.
Now, allow me to simply throw out a hypothetical here, which I have not seen anyone mention:
If it were to be proven that material physical properties of flexibility, limited elongation and patterns of deformation in standard artificial fur materials and tanned hides of real animals, when such materials are tailored into a suit of the shape depicted in the film, and worn by a human and performing as shown in the film, if said materials cannot physically replicate the motions due to their material physics, and a suit is thus excluded, is it posible the figure in the film is a human female with hypertrichosis?
Has this option been explored, because it does not require a suit, and does not require any criptid biologic? It is an existant option. Just curious.
(Definition, for reference):Hypertrichosis, congenital generalized Hypertrichosis or werewolf syndrome is a medical term referring to a condition of excessive body hair. Werewolf syndrome comes from the characteristics of a mythological werewolf of which the person is completely covered in hair or fur.
On to the photo of the head and a "clasp". I have no conclusion on this, and would suspect a photo artifact of the grain structure. Simply from my experience as a suit fabricator, I'd never put any kind of clasp there and don't know anybody else who would. Don't see a point for it, unless somebody with a wicked sense of humor made Patty with an ear piercing.
Crow Logic:
Thank you for your comment. I have nothing to add to it.
Drew:
Hey, guy.
I think people looking at my notes do tend to skip over parts and might miss that I tried to preface esch discussion with a section of "if it's a suit" and then a section of "if it's real". But as you read down under that section, you might not connect the opening premise with the statements farther in. The "If it's real" qualifier apples to the entirety of the section that follows. Thank you for helping clear that up.
Kitakaze:
You like the "house of cards" analogy. Show me the cards.
Regards your questions:
"Did you have any thoughts at the time about a possible connection between Giganto and bigfoot?
It was the prevailing philosophy in 1987, and I thought a connection was plausable, if you first assume bigfoot does exist.
In AtomicMysteryMonster's post of #10195, there are quotes from you and me I believe. I suppose when a post cites multiple quotes and quotes upon quotes, there may be some confusion. If I am wrong, in saying you directly quoted me, I apologize.
Your quote: "I'm sorry. I failed to see anything in your writing that showed a man in a suit would be the less likely option given the brevity and nature of the alledged performance in the PGF. Could you identify in the film and detail where we are looking at an exhausting performance that would make a human actor unlikely?"
No. The entire discussion of people in suits was general foundation information.
Now interspersing your quote and my comments inserted (yours in quotes):
"OK, here's where I have issue with your comments on the breasts. You go in to detail on creating the illusion of bouncing breasts when anyone can look at the PGF and be hard pressed to notice a miniscule amount, if any, of breast bouncing."
So take option one of my notes, making fake breasts that don't move, a slip latex and polyfoam construction? I'm simply outlining all options. Isn't that the wise method of a critical thinker?
"Talking a lot about what you know and talking nothing about what we're looking at. You've said that the breasts appear more human than ape. Can you show me one set of natural human breasts (disregarding the hirsute problem for a moment) that are set on the torso and shaped in such a way as we see in the PGF? Those breasts are like nothing in nature that I have ever seen. There shape, position, rigidity, hirsuteness... It's like nothing we know about primate mammary glands."
Your opinion, vs my opinion. Nothing more. "normalcy" or "naturalness" is a perception, not a quantifiable fact. You disagree with me. Fine. And I think you do need to look at more breasts.
"Now this may offend you, Bill, though I promise that's not my intention. However, what I see seems to be a rather undistinguished former make-up effects and suit creator that has written loads on his incredulity at how the PGF could have been hoaxed while ignoring glaring facts pointing to a hoax."
You are entitled to your opinion of my "undistinguished" career in makeup. Doesn't offend me. People of any degree of accomplishment have critics.
"I would like to say that I respect that you had the confidence in your observations to remove them from the mutual backpatters society and bring them to a place where they are far more likely to receive some real scrutiny."
Thank you for that acknowledgement.
LTC8K6
So you prefer to remain unread? Interesting research philosophy.
sgoodman72
Thank you. When I went through the full 2 months of posts about me here, before joining, I saw a lot of what you mention, and a sparcity of real constructive discussion.
Would be nice to return to constructive talks about issues and research.
GT/CS
I haven't read it all (what I did took over 6 hours), so maybe there is some fine discussion in the thread overall.
Creekfreak:
You leave me speechless.
Bill
Busy night and morning. i will try to reply to each,
Devnull:
You seem to feel any such experimentation will fail to yield any usable data, in other words, a waste of time. I happen to believe experiments can potentially yield data that will add to our body of knowledge. I respect your position. Mine stands for me.
Ray: i agree, in the best of all worlds. In the mean time, we do what we can with what we have. Some people use "we don't have the perfect foundation so let's not begin" as a way to do nothing. I tend to be one why tries to start with the best I can get, and hope to continually improve the quality of the data or resource as i go.
LTC8K6:
Dr. Heuvelmans has neglected to mention that furcloth (artificial fur) generally has a "lay" a directional component of the lay of the fur, baked into the fabric fur pile, and so it doesn't bend or brush equally in every direction.
I would like to see how hair patterns on known animals do in fact photograph under the circumstances of a test I outlined, so we can say with more certainty if what's on the film has hair "pointing in all directions" as he claims.
Sweat Yeti:
Thank you for your comments. My primary philosophy in the above described test is simply that doing such tests will give us data we currently do not have. Whether it will resolve any issues cannot be determined until after we obtain it and study it.
Aepervius:
So your contention is "process of elimination" is not a scientific method? Fascinating.
You say "NO MATTER how extensive your knowledge, you cannot prove patty is a true bigfoot this way"
Did you read my premise in my first post? Did I say I am trying to prove Patty real? No, I said I was trying to determine if materials of the time can produce a figure as appears in the film, which is in motion. You are the one misunderstanding my premise. And as I have stated repeatedly, I still have not offered any conclusion. You are jumping to one.
LTC8K6
Your quote: "What is needed is the elimination of the suit possibility"
That is my premise and intent. Thank you for agreeing with me. Please tell that to Aepervius (above)
Mr. Parcher:
Well, my analytical work (as you quoted of me) is leading to "the option of a suit seems less and less likely." That is correct. And I have stated repeatedly I have not reached any conclusion yet and continue to study the issue. I have made no secret of my preplexity at the hip/pelvic area, in patricular.
Now, allow me to simply throw out a hypothetical here, which I have not seen anyone mention:
If it were to be proven that material physical properties of flexibility, limited elongation and patterns of deformation in standard artificial fur materials and tanned hides of real animals, when such materials are tailored into a suit of the shape depicted in the film, and worn by a human and performing as shown in the film, if said materials cannot physically replicate the motions due to their material physics, and a suit is thus excluded, is it posible the figure in the film is a human female with hypertrichosis?
Has this option been explored, because it does not require a suit, and does not require any criptid biologic? It is an existant option. Just curious.
(Definition, for reference):Hypertrichosis, congenital generalized Hypertrichosis or werewolf syndrome is a medical term referring to a condition of excessive body hair. Werewolf syndrome comes from the characteristics of a mythological werewolf of which the person is completely covered in hair or fur.
On to the photo of the head and a "clasp". I have no conclusion on this, and would suspect a photo artifact of the grain structure. Simply from my experience as a suit fabricator, I'd never put any kind of clasp there and don't know anybody else who would. Don't see a point for it, unless somebody with a wicked sense of humor made Patty with an ear piercing.
Crow Logic:
Thank you for your comment. I have nothing to add to it.
Drew:
Hey, guy.
I think people looking at my notes do tend to skip over parts and might miss that I tried to preface esch discussion with a section of "if it's a suit" and then a section of "if it's real". But as you read down under that section, you might not connect the opening premise with the statements farther in. The "If it's real" qualifier apples to the entirety of the section that follows. Thank you for helping clear that up.
Kitakaze:
You like the "house of cards" analogy. Show me the cards.
Regards your questions:
"Did you have any thoughts at the time about a possible connection between Giganto and bigfoot?
It was the prevailing philosophy in 1987, and I thought a connection was plausable, if you first assume bigfoot does exist.
In AtomicMysteryMonster's post of #10195, there are quotes from you and me I believe. I suppose when a post cites multiple quotes and quotes upon quotes, there may be some confusion. If I am wrong, in saying you directly quoted me, I apologize.
Your quote: "I'm sorry. I failed to see anything in your writing that showed a man in a suit would be the less likely option given the brevity and nature of the alledged performance in the PGF. Could you identify in the film and detail where we are looking at an exhausting performance that would make a human actor unlikely?"
No. The entire discussion of people in suits was general foundation information.
Now interspersing your quote and my comments inserted (yours in quotes):
"OK, here's where I have issue with your comments on the breasts. You go in to detail on creating the illusion of bouncing breasts when anyone can look at the PGF and be hard pressed to notice a miniscule amount, if any, of breast bouncing."
So take option one of my notes, making fake breasts that don't move, a slip latex and polyfoam construction? I'm simply outlining all options. Isn't that the wise method of a critical thinker?
"Talking a lot about what you know and talking nothing about what we're looking at. You've said that the breasts appear more human than ape. Can you show me one set of natural human breasts (disregarding the hirsute problem for a moment) that are set on the torso and shaped in such a way as we see in the PGF? Those breasts are like nothing in nature that I have ever seen. There shape, position, rigidity, hirsuteness... It's like nothing we know about primate mammary glands."
Your opinion, vs my opinion. Nothing more. "normalcy" or "naturalness" is a perception, not a quantifiable fact. You disagree with me. Fine. And I think you do need to look at more breasts.
"Now this may offend you, Bill, though I promise that's not my intention. However, what I see seems to be a rather undistinguished former make-up effects and suit creator that has written loads on his incredulity at how the PGF could have been hoaxed while ignoring glaring facts pointing to a hoax."
You are entitled to your opinion of my "undistinguished" career in makeup. Doesn't offend me. People of any degree of accomplishment have critics.
"I would like to say that I respect that you had the confidence in your observations to remove them from the mutual backpatters society and bring them to a place where they are far more likely to receive some real scrutiny."
Thank you for that acknowledgement.
LTC8K6
So you prefer to remain unread? Interesting research philosophy.
sgoodman72
Thank you. When I went through the full 2 months of posts about me here, before joining, I saw a lot of what you mention, and a sparcity of real constructive discussion.
Would be nice to return to constructive talks about issues and research.
GT/CS
I haven't read it all (what I did took over 6 hours), so maybe there is some fine discussion in the thread overall.
Creekfreak:
You leave me speechless.
Bill
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Unless you have something new to add to the suit discussion? So far, it doesn't look like I have missed anything.
I don't hang around the BFF. I don't post at the BFF, or anywhere else regarding bigfoot.
I'm sure if you prove anything, or come up with any new evidence, it'll get to me.
The long shadows made by Bob Gimlin and the pack horse while riding towards the PGF site near "noon" on the day of the filming are much more interesting to me at the moment.
Last edited:
To all:
.....Snip
GT/CS
I haven't read it all (what I did took over 6 hours), so maybe there is some fine discussion in the thread overall.
Creekfreak:
You leave me speechless.
Bill
Bill, my comment was directed at sgoodman72. I certainly wouldn't expect you to have read the entire thread, especially since you are not making flippant comments about the quality of the discussion.
It's a shame Historian was banned before you arrived, he would have left you speechless, too!
Last edited:
Bill Munns
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2008
- Messages
- 449
Seems I can't keep up with all the activity, so shall continue from 12267 on.
LTC8K6
"Bill Munn is not here to make a fool of anyone, Creek."
You are correct. I am not. i respect different opinions and i respect people who criticize me. All I ask is that the criticism have a basis in fact and logic, not character attacks or elitist mentality.
devnull
"Youll probably notice that over the next few pages CF that Bill will distance himself from you. I get the impression that Bill is a BF-believer here to present his case as if he's coming from a skeptical position (ie "I was an atheist until I found jesus!"). In other words, he is a BFer just like yourself, and yet he wont want to be on your 'team'.
There's something in that for you. Can you find it?"
Your impression of me is wrong. I want to see if facts can settle the issue and I'll go where the facts lead, if they can make a determination. But you are entitled to your opinion of me.
Astrophotographer:
My assumption is that performing tests of real fur mediums photographed under conditions as similar to the original can be replicated, will give some type of "callibration" to the issue of how much data can be extracted from such a film. knowing the real data being photographed allows the control which the data study of the new filming is compared to.
You might, for example, film a lion mane at a zoo, same film, camera, size in frame, and then similar duping before scanning, and find that study reveals the lion has a braided mane, based on the grain structure creating artificial structure patterns misintrepreted as hair patterns in the filmed subject. By going back to the real lion (which presumably the zookeepers didn't braid its mane), you now have a reference to say a hair braid structure, if found in the PG film, is a grain induced artifiact, not indicative of any real hair pattern of the PG figure.
Seems like such a study would help us sort things out.
LTC8K6
The above might relate to your comment.
Bill
added:
LTC8K6
I do respect that you choose to focus your research in certain areas. So do I. Seems other people fail to appreciate that each researcher has the right to focus their study on certain issues and exclude others. You are working on issues of the Bluff Creek area (I presume by the photo) and all that transpired there.
I'm working on issues of suit fabrication and material technology and capability, plus issues of the humans in suits.
Good luck on your research.
GT/CS
Thanks for qualifying the remark. Can't say I know "Historian", but read some intriguing comments about him.
Bill
LTC8K6
"Bill Munn is not here to make a fool of anyone, Creek."
You are correct. I am not. i respect different opinions and i respect people who criticize me. All I ask is that the criticism have a basis in fact and logic, not character attacks or elitist mentality.
devnull
"Youll probably notice that over the next few pages CF that Bill will distance himself from you. I get the impression that Bill is a BF-believer here to present his case as if he's coming from a skeptical position (ie "I was an atheist until I found jesus!"). In other words, he is a BFer just like yourself, and yet he wont want to be on your 'team'.
There's something in that for you. Can you find it?"
Your impression of me is wrong. I want to see if facts can settle the issue and I'll go where the facts lead, if they can make a determination. But you are entitled to your opinion of me.
Astrophotographer:
My assumption is that performing tests of real fur mediums photographed under conditions as similar to the original can be replicated, will give some type of "callibration" to the issue of how much data can be extracted from such a film. knowing the real data being photographed allows the control which the data study of the new filming is compared to.
You might, for example, film a lion mane at a zoo, same film, camera, size in frame, and then similar duping before scanning, and find that study reveals the lion has a braided mane, based on the grain structure creating artificial structure patterns misintrepreted as hair patterns in the filmed subject. By going back to the real lion (which presumably the zookeepers didn't braid its mane), you now have a reference to say a hair braid structure, if found in the PG film, is a grain induced artifiact, not indicative of any real hair pattern of the PG figure.
Seems like such a study would help us sort things out.
LTC8K6
The above might relate to your comment.
Bill
added:
LTC8K6
I do respect that you choose to focus your research in certain areas. So do I. Seems other people fail to appreciate that each researcher has the right to focus their study on certain issues and exclude others. You are working on issues of the Bluff Creek area (I presume by the photo) and all that transpired there.
I'm working on issues of suit fabrication and material technology and capability, plus issues of the humans in suits.
Good luck on your research.
GT/CS
Thanks for qualifying the remark. Can't say I know "Historian", but read some intriguing comments about him.
Bill
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
As I have said before, even if the suit were duplicated with period materials it wouldn't matter. It only shows that Patty could have been a man in a suit, and we already know that.
It doesn't prove that Patterson filmed a man in a suit.
It doesn't prove that Patterson filmed a man in a suit.
sgoodman72
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 64
I can assure you sir, I have read the entire thread (as painful as it was as of late). Recently it's just been idle bantering and word games.
As Bill Munns just stated:
Bill Munns said:
Shall we?
Last edited:
Bill, are you aware of Dfoot's picture of patty photoshopped into an urban setting & claimed to be a suit reconstruction? A lot of people on the BF boards were quick to say how it looked nothing like the real thing & was obviously a suit (until they realized what had been done, them it was mass chaos.) That is one of my problems with the attempt to duplicate it. No matter how detailed & accurate, they will not accept it. I think the inconsistancies in between the story told & the film speak volumes, & I believe the real answer (no pun intended) lies on the uncut original film. (I also noticed you worked on the film "The Beastmaster" please tell me you did not do the FX for those stupid winged acid puking monsters )
)Gentlemen..Let's suppose for a moment we are back in 1967..We are constructing a monkey suit in our garage, in an attempt to fool alot of people when we film our buddy walking in the suit in the middle of no where, in an area that Bigfoot has been reported..Fine a plausible, distinct possibility that this may have happened. Now, as they are constructing this suit, did Patterson say to Gimlin, "Hey Bob, whatta ya say, let's throw a cuppla tits on this thing,..." Absolutely NOT... Reason #1. Why complicate matters. Fabricating fake breasts takes time, money and a high degree of difficulty. Reason # 2. Why dress up like a female Bigfoot, if there was the possibility that a Male might show up..could be a very painful event for the guy in the suit, if you get my drift. I sure as hell wouldn't wear a female gorilla suit while strolling through the jungles where male Gorillas may be present.
- Status