Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Dancing David]

I wouldn't be suprised if Bigfoot understood the electric sun theory...

 

[kitakaze]

For example: You have a thread on BFF titled, "Creature Suit Analysis Part 10 - Flab". The term "flab" was a good and safe choice over there. Flab denotes visible fatty deposits on a living animal. Had you chosen something like "material folds or bunching on Patty", you would have put up a scare situation and caused fervent actions from the crowd. OMG, Bill is not saying he sees costume flaws is he? We thought he wasn't going to go there with us. We thought he was a good guy. We thought he was a Patty believer.

You know, the bag of chips analogy was very apt. I notice that while Munns drops the requisite fine print disclaimers here and there, his posts at the BFF are littered with language and statements that in no way show an unbiased individual. The fine print may say "...if a suit was used..." but the bold, zesty goodness that footers eat up and lick their fingers after goes like this:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21885&view=findpost&p=444833

So the probability issue, as related to the real thing, remains a question we can't answer yet. All we can say is that as the probability of a suit goes down, the probability of a real creature goes up as the most credible alternate explanation.

And I, for one, see the odds of a suit going south, on a one way ticket.

Now here's the thing. If you're trying to develop your ideas in a scientific manner and have some kind of consistent protocol, if you want to have any semblance of objectivity, would you choose a huge bigfoot forum as the environment in which to carry out your inquiry. What kind of peer scrutiny are you going to get there? I don't know about you but I would consider the cheerleading section a detriment and a distraction.

Bill, where can we take your writing excercises to be reviewed by people who would qualify as your peers? That seems like an important thing to do.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Bill, where can we take your writing excercises to be reviewed by people who would qualify as your peers? That seems like an important thing to do.

This is very important. Any expert can provide their analysis but it takes a pretty good consensus of experts to agree that the analysis is valid. Having one expert opinion is a start but I, for one, want more expert opinions and analysis. It is too easy for one opinion to be considered the sole basis for establishing something as fact because that is what you want to believe.

 

[Bill Munns]

Replies
Starting with Mr. Parcher's question about my lack of using the quote function:

I compose my statements and replies in Wordpad, on one screen, while having the forum page I'm responding to on the other screen. I write a first draft with my mind going a bit faster than my typing, and spelling never was my best skill, so I take time to proof and check spelling. The "quote" copies into WordPad only as text. Once I've done a first draft, I prefer to think things through, re-read for clarity, and try to make the most responsible statement, not just an off-the-cuff impulse statement. So the "quote" function get lost in the process. Sorry for the inconcevenience.

Now to Aepervius Post #12318

I ask you, "so your contention is 'process of elimination' is not a scientific method" Fascinating" and you reply "No it is not. It allows you to form an hypothese at best. But that is it. The scientific method involve far more "

So, if process of elimination only allows you to form a hypothesis and is not a part of the scientific method (Your exact words, "no it is not!"), than forming a hypothesis is not part of the scientific method. Your reasoning is truly fascinating.

I am forming a hypothesis. I've said that repeatedly. I still have experiments and studies to do, I've said that repeatedly. Falsification of the hypothesis will be factored into the study. I have not offered any final conclusion yet, I have said that repeatedly. My notes are a work in progress, I've made that clear. And I've stated repeatedly that I am studying material physical properties and dynamics, as my principle emphasis.

If you are studying something specific made of plastic, for example, you study what that plastic compound can or cannot do, in physical property terms. You do not need to study every specific item made of that plastic.

Similarly, IF it can be shown that furcloth materials of the time do not have some physical properties necessary to do what is seen on the film, and it is the inherent physical character of the material that is causing the lack of capacity, than any costume fabricated with such material is included, and does not need to be tested seperately.

And I repeat, which you clearly fail to grasp, I'm not trying to prove a real criptid exists. I even offered an option of a real human that might satisfy the "real" and not involve a cryptid, if the suit were (hypothetically) not possible.

I can offer conclusions to specific questions in the larger matrix of study. If you ask me if standard furcloth can stretch like new spandex based furcloths, I can say categorically (conclude) they do not. They lack the physical dynamic to do so.

Let me repeat. My notes are a work in progress.


Drewbot;
to your questions:

1: "1. Do you have a vested interest in Bigfoot being accepted as real by a percentage of the population? i.e. upcoming TV shows, a book, etc...

Answer: No. None.

"2. If you saw something on the Patty film that stood out to you as a standard flaw of costumes of that era, would you publicly admit that Patty was a man costume?

Answer: Yes. I've already stated all issues of the breasts can be fabricated 100%, thus refuting any claim that anything seen in the film may "prove" the breasts or creature is real.

"3. As an expert on Costumes, your opinion is valued here, but do you think your opinion would be accepted on BFF if you did find evidence that it was indeed a costume?"

Answer: I don't speculate on who will or will not accept any evidence I eventually fine. Good science tries to follow the data and see what it reveals or can determine. That's where I'm going. Somebody won't like what I find, but I won't speculate who that might be.

Mr. Parcher # 12334

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps I may care about a final conclusion simply because I want to understand better what's in that film? And I put notes and thoughts into a public forum so it may be criticized by others, forcing me to re-examine my facts, premises, and logical reasoning methods.

You say " That is unless you change your present course." The sad thing about this whole dialogue is you cannot comprehend my course. You truly do not know anything about my life thus far (59 years of it, to date) what I've learned, what I've invented, what I've proven, and what challenges I have faced for the actions I've taken.

Do you think you must warn me about being ostricized by my profession or community because I take a stand on a matter that the prevailing opinion or dogma opposes. I've been there, done that, and I'm still standing, so, trust me, I can deal with somebody not liking me if I come to a conclusion that person or persons bitterly oppose.

You must take risks if you truly want to learn, and you must be willing to face the most withering criticisms from people of all intellectual plateaus, whether the most lucid and logical or the most deranged and naive. You must be willing to criticize yourself, and not fear to even prove yourself wrong if the data leads there. But most of all, you must value understanding above winning, because if "winning" becomes your goal, then you start refusing facts, twisting logic, and denying ideas of merit. And all you win is ignorance.

I want to understand what's in the PG film. It mystifies me and I would like an answer. That is my goal, my ambition, my intention. Do you find that so hard to grasp? And would you please give it a rest predicting my future if I pursue my "present course". Spend more time predicting the course of your own life.

Focus on your own real accomplishments, instead of simply being a commentator of others lives (past, present or future). Don't you want to walk away from the computer sometimes, and look out at this splendid, majestic, intricate and astonishing world we live in and feel like you understand it, a little better each day, because you opened your mind to exploration and discovery, choosing to walk down a road even when you don't know where it leads, to see what's at the end of it?

I do.

kitakaze:

Isn't there a discussion in this forum as well as BFF? Didn't many of you discus me and my notes for two months before i arrived? An I stopping you or anybody from taking the notes to anybody in the industry for review or comment? Or do you make the rules of how I have to go about this, specifying which forums I can go to, or when I must get peer review?

I'll get peer review on my schedule.You can take the notes for peer review to anybody you like, if you choose. Fair enough?

Astrophotographer:

Is anyone stoping you or Kitakaze or anybody else here from copying my notes and taking them to somebody for review? If you put the burden on me, it'll happen in my time, my schedule. If you're impatient, you may take the initiative and speed it up yourself.

Either way, works for me.

Bill

 

[Crowlogic]

Critical thinking should not be allowed to become critical of thinking!

 

[captain koolaid]

How many other proported female Bigfoot have there been reported or filmed since the PGF? Men, especially men that inhabit cultural, professional and geographical masculine archtypical regions think and direct their actions ideas and energies in the masculine. The consideration of the feminine revolves almost exclusively around sex, child rearing and the home. While some of that has moderated in more recent years in the American West of 1967 men were men and the masculine archtype was still undiluted by the "cultural enlightenments" that followed within the next decade. One only needs to consider the image of the Malboro Man to appreciate how deeply masculine the West was and still is in many respects.

The leap that Patterson and his cohorts would have needed to make in order to present thier idea in the feminine form was, in my not so humble opinion, beyond their thinking. The creation that they came up with as a male or gender neutural would have served the same purpose as the female version seen on the film as well as having been easier to construct.

Doubtful that Patterson would be constrained by trendy marxist sociological dogma. Works for cultists though.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
Things are not always what they seem...isn't that right, kitty?

Do you know for sure that I'm "unable to handle the debate"...and that I'm evading questions...or are you, instead, talking out of your hind end?

I know that I've been given no reason to think otherwise.

Feel free to prove me wrong and pick up the debate from where we left off. For one thing, I've shown that what you called a lengthy explanation as to why your position regarding bigfoot is not based on belief was scarce on content and erroneous in its reasoning.

Actually, kitty...you've been given two reasons to think otherwise.

One is simply that I've SAID I've been too busy to answer all of the many questions that I'm asked here.

The other reason is that I told you that you could send Lu a PM, and ask her if what I've been saying is the truth....but apparantly you didn't.

I ask you again....and don't be a "scaredy-kitty"......

Do you know for sure that I'm "unable to handle the debate"...and that I'm evading questions...or are you, instead, talking out of your hind end?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Over 300 pages and still no closer to proving the existence of a large, biped primate living in the Northern Hemisphere. Go figure! (Anyone else surprised?)

 

[Crowlogic]

Doubtful that Patterson would be constrained by trendy marxist sociological dogma. Works for cultists though.

Too bad I'm neither a Marxist or a cultist. I've come to bury Roger Patterson not to praise him!

 

[Bill Munns]

Followup to my prior post
Mr. Parcher:

You seem very concerned for my future, and the prospect of my being somehow hurt if I finally offer a conclusion that somebody doesn't like. I thank you for your concern for my future.

That said, I want to ask you a hypothetical question, which you may think about, respond to, or ignore as you choose. That question is: If you are in a circumstance where some social injustice (job discrimination, for example) is widely practiced by the prevailing community, and you believe that injustice should be opposed by a proactive action of justice, would you just accept the injustice and stay in the good graces of the prevailing community, or would you choose to stand for justice even if ostricized by the community, in effect, punished for "doing the right thing"?

The reason I ask is that in the late 60's when I started as a makeup artist, women were not allowed into the profesion by the Hollywood establishment. I believe one woman got in through a technicallity, but essentially, women were refused any chance to be in the apprentice program, and union makeup artist were prohibited from teaching anyone but a union apprentice, resulting in women not being taught so they could enter the profession. Blatant job discrimination by gender, sad but true.

In the 70's, I was director of a school training makeup artists, and I trained women as well as men. In 1979, I chose to leave the school and resume my own movie work. On my jobs needing crews in the lab or on set, I hired many of my former students, men and women alike, because I felt they were equally qualified.

By the mid 80's, I had done quite a few movies, every time giving women as much opportunity to work and gain experience in the profession as men, because I believed it was the right thing to do.

The result:
I was told by a friend who was willing to say what others were saying behind mt back, producers, directors, and executives. They were saying, "Bill is good, but he doesn't use first rate crews, so he's not giving us his best effort. Maybe we should hire somebody who is giving their best effort."

And do you know their definition of "not giving the films my best effort?" I was not hiring an all male crew, and of course, everybody knew an all male crew was first rate while a crew of equal men and women was a second rate crew. (their thinking)

I lost jobs because I believed discrimination against women was wrong, and Hollywood was an "old boys network" still determined to blatantly discriminate against women in many of the film professions, and I wasn't playing ball with them by their rules. Did I suffer, from those lost jobs. Certainly. Do I regret what I did? No. And today, the president of the makeup union is a woman, a former student I helped to learn and enter the profession. Job discrimination based on gender or race is not longer practiced in the makeup profession, and I helped make that happen.

If you believe something is right, you do it even when it may cause some hardship in your profession, your earning or your acceptance from your peers. If you have to choose between being part of the problem or part of the solution, I truly hope you will choose to be part of the solution, despite any potential for hardship along the way. I did. I would do so again, if faced with that choice. So you may rest assured and stop worrying about any hardship in my future because of my "current path". But I appreciate your concern.

Bill

 

[captain koolaid]

Too bad I'm neither a Marxist or a cultist. I've come to bury Roger Patterson not to praise him!

Fair enough. The statement was not actually directed at you. Have heard the same reasoning a number of times before. Apologies if it came across as an accusation.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Is anyone stoping you or Kitakaze or anybody else here from copying my notes and taking them to somebody for review? If you put the burden on me, it'll happen in my time, my schedule. If you're impatient, you may take the initiative and speed it up yourself.

I am somewhat confused. I assumed you would want to do it yourself since you seem to think people misquote you. If your research is incomplete, then you should not be making claims. If it is complete, feel free to publish. As for your "notes", I think that is all they are..."notes" and I don't see them collected in any form any where with any conclusion whatsoever. Maybe it would be best if you published them in a journal with peer review of some kind. Spending your time arguing with people in some forums on the web just isn't going to get it done though.

 

[staunch]

To address the issue of the foot, and the claim that it has no toes:

In Dr. Jeff Meldrum's companion book to "Sasquatch Legend Meets Science" he explains why the bottom of the foot on the Patterson creature looked white and not dark like other primates.

The foot was angled in a way that the smooth surface of the sole was in direct sunlight causing overexposure on the film. When Meldrum visited the film location he noticed the sand was a dark gray and not white like in the film. In other words the sand was overexposed in the film also. Because of this over-exposure the toes would be less distinct. They would be washed out. When the film was scanned frame by frame and the details brought out better, the toes were more visible.

Who scanned the film? What process was used to detail the toes. Does anyone have the frame exposing the toes. I follow the thread but I don't recall seeing it posted. I may have mist it. Following the thread causes Cluster Headaches.

 

[Bill Munns]

Astrophotographer

"I am somewhat confused. I assumed you would want to do it yourself since you seem to think people misquote you. If your research is incomplete, then you should not be making claims. If it is complete, feel free to publish. As for your "notes", I think that is all they are..."notes" and I don't see them collected in any form any where with any conclusion whatsoever. Maybe it would be best if you published them in a journal with peer review of some kind. Spending your time arguing with people in some forums on the web just isn't going to get it done though."

Then why did people on this forum spend two months arguing about my notes before I ever came here?

I'm here merely to defend myself from the reckless remarks of others about my work. Others introduced excerpts of my notes to this forum.

I'd love to get back to just working on my research, but if people criticize me in a public forum, I must defend myself and offer my side of the argument.

Bill

 

[captain koolaid]

Strike- Off topic.

 

[Geno]

Mr. Munns, thanks for joining the forum. My question is what percentage of your peers who have seen the film think this could not be a man in a suit? I have read some interviews with Winston, Baker etc and they all say it is a guy in a suit and not an unknown creature. If I can find that 90% of suit makers think it is a guy in a suit then that would throw the weight against the film's authenticity at least in my mind.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Then why did people on this forum spend two months arguing about my notes before I ever came here?

I'm here merely to defend myself from the reckless remarks of others about my work. Others introduced excerpts of my notes to this forum.

I'd love to get back to just working on my research, but if people criticize me in a public forum, I must defend myself and offer my side of the argument.

I am not sure what your problem is then. First of all, I have never commented on anything you have done until you made some comments here. I have just took the stance of being critical of bigfoot 'research', which I find very shoddy and totally worthless because it has proven nothing after 40 years since the PGF was recorded.
If you find yourself misquoted, then you should correct it. If you find people critical of your work, then they have that right and you have the right to defend yourself and the work.
As for your research, I am not sure what you expect if you publicly present it when it is incomplete. Most scientists/researchers don't published half works publicly until they are sure their work is correct. It seems to me you have opened yourself to such criticism by presenting your work in the manner you have chosen.
If you want to continue your research, then go right ahead. It seems you spend a great deal of time in here and, apparently, in other forums arguing/commenting endlessly. It is your time that is being wasted and not mine. However, do not ask me to publish things for you in some sarcastic comment simply because I am taking the position that I would like to see greater analysis by more than one expert on the subject.

 

[Bill Munns]

Astrophotographer:

You seem like a nice person. Your question is sincere and without sarcasm. So Let me try to answer you more fully, with respect and equal sincerity.

People on this board brought my name and portions of my notes here. Then they got increasingly sarcastic, personally critical, and demeaning of me as I continued to post in another forum where people welcomed my notes and commented and contributed to those in a constructive way.

Why did the very existance of my notes on another forum so intimidate these people here that they felt they had to gossip about me here? And if they did to you what they did to me these last two months, wouldn't you want to defend yourself?

In the matter of the notes, here are my thoughts, again, respectfully answering your sincere question.

During any research effort, you can make conclusions on singular issues within the larger research framework. And you may show your reseach work in progress to others if you choose, or operate in secret, as one prefers. Allowing others to read, review and comment on a work in progress does have merit in helping shape the further direction of the effort. It did with mine.

I never forced anyone to read them or talk about them. Anyone can just say, "well, he's not done yet, so I'll just wait till he's done and published and then maybe I'll have a look."

The notes will only be talked about on this forum as long as forum members choose to talk about them, because I'm not planning on posting any notes here, except segments to counter arguments made by others to defend myself. Perhaps you should ask those who brought my name and discussion of the notes over here, why they did so, why they felt they were necessary to discuss. I frankly wish they hadn't, but done is done.

I hope that answers your question better.

Bill

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Mr. Munns, thanks for joining the forum. My question is what percentage of your peers who have seen the film think this could not be a man in a suit? I have read some interviews with Winston, Baker etc and they all say it is a guy in a suit and not an unknown creature. If I can find that 90% of suit makers think it is a guy in a suit then that would throw the weight against the film's authenticity at least in my mind.

I'd like to piggyback off Geno's post and note this short video, in which Stan Winston discusses why he feels the P/G film is a hoax. I'm interested in how he feels Mr. Winston's comments on the nature of fake fur compare/contrast with those of Dr. Heuvelmans.

Okay, back to my reply to Mr. Munns' responses to my comments on his notes...

 

[LTC8K6]

Then why did people on this forum spend two months arguing about my notes before I ever came here?

Please support that or quit saying it. How many people are you talking about?

Personally, I'm certain there's not enough detail in the film to say much of anything about the fur involved. There could be 11 zippers and it would be difficult to spot them in this grainy, blurry, low resolution, poorly exposed strip of film.

On top of that, we are not even looking at originals, but enhanced and enlarged copies, which further degrades what little detail there was in the first place.

No one can say anything much at all about the fur or hair involved imo, except in broad terms.

All such talk about details is just noise, which is what's on the film when you try to see details.