Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill,

I haven't had a chance to read all of the information on this page yet, but I felt the need to post this due to a recent quote of yours:

Bill Munns said:
Can I post them to a website of my own, or must I hide them from all public view?

And I repeat, all talk of the notes in this forum is because others here brought my name and discussion of my notes here. I didn't. And all talk about my research plans or goals stems from people here challenging me to explain or justify my position.

If you all promise to ignore me, I promise to go away. (the notes will, of course, still be in another forum).
Click to expand...

I am seeing the JREF regulars begin to do to you exactly what they do best. That is, having arguments that revolve around worthless semantics and character information, rather than the real subject at hand. For most, it reaches a point of frustration that they don't even bother to argue anymore, please don't let that happen.

I saw it mentioned that you may not be completely familiar with internet forums, so let me just tell you what is beginning to happen here. You are being drawn into their game and are going down the road of having to defend yourself, and play word games with these folks rather than just simply analyzing the data that you came here to do.

You had your mission statement, and as you can see some people are very, very good at pulling you in opposite directions.

My conviction that I stated day 1 still stands. Namely, I hope we can get away from the tired old run-arounds and worthless badgering (of skeptics, believers, and mere researchers alike) so as to actually get into the meat of this issue. /end rant
 
Last edited:
Bill Munns said:
Astrophotographer

Can you distinguish between "an expert in costume suit fabrication and technology" and an "expert in the PGFilm"?

A person may have expertise in one and not so the other, and still be an expert in something.


Added:

If what is in the PG Film appears to be a person in a suit, as some people contend, than an expert in suits can appraise the film content from the person's subject of expertise, as I do. That is different from being an expert on the film itself, which embodies many other considerations aside from the issue of whether the figure in it is a suit.
Click to expand...

Which I had stated previously, where you were applying your area of expertise to the film. For some reason you missed that. Therefore, you are offering you area of expertise to analyze the film to determine if it is a man in a suit. Do I understand this correctly?

As for your area of expertise, as I stated, I have seen quotes from your peers saying it is their opinion that it is a man in a suit. Therefore, you will have to go a long way to suggest that it is not a man in a suit. To me it would take a lot more than one "expert in suit fabrication" to convince me that it is not a man in a suit but I am willing to listen to your case. Perhaps you can start by listing the top five reasons you think it is not a man in a suit.

BTW, do you understand how to use the "quote" button? I think somebody asked you to do this before. It would make things easier for everyone to follow your postings.
 
There isn't any meat in the issue, imo. It's all filler.

No real evidence to discuss, and nothing new in a very long time.

No details of the fur or suit are available to us in the PGF.
 
Last edited:
The "enlongated hand" theory is completely wrong. There is actually a darker area in the background (not sure if it's vegatation, ground, etc. EDIT: it actually looks like a log, you can see the continued through to Patty's rump) directly behind Patty's hand that makes it's seem as if it is long and streched. Patty's hand is actually in a semi-clenched position, just like her other hand is. (see my red outline)

Also this is the first time I've noticed it, but I see a large thumb on Patty's hand that I've circled, and even what would appear to be the thumb-nail. I also see her other fingers curled underneath into a semi-clenched position. Any other viewpoints?


HandAnalysis.jpg



I will also be the first to say that in viewing and re-viewing the "pendulous breasts," they are actually bouncing/swinging far more than I originally had realized they were. And to the comment about one swinging but the other not, they both appear to be moving, however in the short clip posted by Sweaty you only see more movement on one of them perhaps becuase the other arm is stretched.
 
Last edited:
Also this is the first time I've noticed it, but I see a large thumb on Patty's hand that I've circled, and even what would appear to be the thumb-nail. I also see her other fingers curled underneath into a semi-clenched position. Any other viewpoints?
Click to expand...


Have you checked these in motion to eliminate background clutter merging with the subject?
 
Drewbot

"Wouldn't any analysis of the PGF from a costume experts point of view, have to have some form of caveat(or Asterisk w/ footnote) with regards to the poor film quality? If yes, how would you word that?"

One of my hopes is to test the capacity of detail to be extracted from a film under the filming circumstances, to better determine how much reliable data can be drawn from the PG Film, in regard to a suit and it's components. If those tests were to confirm the film quality can't resolve some details need for a conclusion, yes, some type of caveat would be appropriate. Can't word it till I get there though.

Mr. Parcher.

Thanks for the tips on the formatting (sincerely). I'll see if I can improve myself there. On the spelling, I'm hopeless. Apologies.

Regards your "Live, and let live. Judge, and prepare to be judged. Rock on."

Works for me.

sgoodman 72

I am certainly seeing a different method of debate here than from the other board. Thank you for your thoughts.

Astrophotographer

I really am trying to find an understanding with you, so here goes.

"Therefore, you are offering you area of expertise to analyze the film to determine if it is a man in a suit. Do I understand this correctly?"

I am offering my area of expertise to evaluate if a suit made with 1967 materials can do all that is seen in the film. My concern is with the performance of materials, not the person inside the materials. It may seem a subtle distinction, but an important one.

Think of it this way. There's a car accident. I am not investigating the driver. I am investigating if the car had some mechnaical defects that contributed to the accident. Other people are investigating the driver, so I let them, and I focus on my specialty.

Yes, I agree everybody else in the business today says "fake". It is their opinion, but they have not offered any notes you can read to say why that's their opinion. What if they are just saying that to show off how smart they are, the "I can spot a fake every time" thing, so of course they have to spot a fake to prove they can, and guess which "fake" they spot? Patty. Can you rule out this option?

Now, my hope is to take this beyond opinion, to testable facts. The notes are just a start, and I have said they started very informally, without any master plan or schedule. When I posted the first set, I estimated there would be 4 parts. Now there are 10, plus some side things.So the whole structure was not planned from day one. It just evolved to what it is now. Evolution sometimes just isn't as neat as we might like. I'm trying to review that and possibly re-organize things.

On a list of five reasons I think patty's not a suit? Haven't got a list yet. I have maybe a few dozen areas of the figure I'm still studying, and some I have set aside. The breasts to me are a non issue. Can be a suit. The walk I ignore. Can be a man, as far as I know. The film speed i ignore because i see no bearing on the suit materials. The anatomy of the figure can have a human inside, feet in feet, head in head mask, and hands in gloves, if the human has an armspan 112% to 115% of height, which apparently many basketball players do have. So those are issues I personally have discounted, from my perspective. Any of those are possibly explained by suits and humans.

Best I can tell you at this point.

And I will try to figure out the quote thing to integrate with my notewriting process.

Bill
 
LTC8K6

The 112% to 115% armspan to height ratio came from my putting a Poser Michael 3 model against various PG frames, and aligning body parts. If I used a normal male figure with 100% ratio (same armspan and height), the human arms were about 6-7 inches short for Patty's hands, as far as i could tell. So I scaled up the human until I could align the head and hands, and found the legs too long. So I shortened the legs and got feet into Patty feet.

Then I unfolded the posed figure for a standing straight up, arms outstretched pose, and measured height relative to armspan. hence the number. I tried to document and illustrate the whole process in my notes, part 6 I believe.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I think it's a shadow. At any rate, the giant hand argument relates to a different frame. I'm not actually aware of any elongated hand claims.
Click to expand...

Ok, so we agree that both of Patty's hands are partially clenched then.

EDIT: By the way I still don't think it's a shadow, what would be casting that shadow? I think it's darker sediment in the background. But the important point is that we agree that it is not a part of Patty's hand.


Anyway, I did just go back and view that scene a few times in the footage, and the thumb I see is definitely a thumb, not background debris or any other object.

Bill,

I've read through most of your notes on prior occassions and am not sure, but is this thumb one of your study areas? If not what do you postulate or make of it? In terms of size, relation to the hand, apparent nail (which I understand could be part of a glove, meaning it doesn't make it any more or less real), or other defining characteristics?

This goes for everyone btw, just mentioned that I hadn't read any of Bill's work about it before.
 
Last edited:
Everybody needs a little something for their hard drive. Cheers!

Image (from Cibachrome) copyright: Rene Dahinden, 1968. "Plate 18. As the creature turned toward them, its heavy, sagging breasts and deepset eyes became evident." Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence, Marjorie Halpin and Michael M. Ames, University of British Columbia Press, 1980.

f3b88396.jpg
 
sgoodman72

No, the hands aren't part of my study anymore, because once I determined a human has the anatomical proportions to fit in the suit hands, nothing about the hands is "unreal" that would exclude a suit and gloves. Hands in gloves can do whatever the film shows, so nothing seen on film about the hands would discount a suit. That said, gloves can be made with any amount of detail, so any detail you find can be explained by a good sculptor and painter. They can be foamed latex, or just plain old slip latex.

And finding a human with the long armspan negates any reason to explain or imagine arm extensions which could complicate a suit and make things harder. So hands down, no issue here, as far as i see.
 
Bill Munns said:
On a list of five reasons I think patty's not a suit? Haven't got a list yet. I have maybe a few dozen areas of the figure I'm still studying, and some I have set aside.
Click to expand...

Critical scientific inquiry sets nothing aside.

The breasts to me are a non issue. Can be a suit.
Click to expand...

Set nothing aside.

The walk I ignore. Can be a man, as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Set nothing aside.

The film speed i ignore because i see no bearing on the suit materials.
Click to expand...

Set nothing aside.

The anatomy of the figure can have a human inside, feet in feet,
Click to expand...

Cowboy boots in fake feet?

hands in gloves,
Click to expand...

Hands that don't reach all the way into costume gloves?

if the human has an armspan 112% to 115% of height, which apparently many basketball players do have. So those are issues I personally have discounted, from my perspective. Any of those are possibly explained by suits and humans.
Click to expand...

Set nothing aside.

No, the hands aren't part of my study anymore, because once I determined a human has the anatomical proportions to fit in the suit hands, nothing about the hands is "unreal" that would exclude a suit and gloves. Hands in gloves can do whatever the film shows, so nothing seen on film about the hands would discount a suit. That said, gloves can be made with any amount of detail, so any detail you find can be explained by a good sculptor and painter. They can be foamed latex, or just plain old slip latex.

And finding a human with the long armspan negates any reason to explain or imagine arm extensions which could complicate a suit and make things harder. So hands down, no issue here, as far as i see.
Click to expand...

Set nothing aside. Bill, are you really trying to engage in scientific methodology? Don't exclude anything. These things you call 'non-issues' really must be part of your theory and included in your analysis. They are important issues simply because they are 'non issues'. Therefore, they are evidences.
 
Bill Munns said:
sgoodman72

No, the hands aren't part of my study anymore, because once I determined a human has the anatomical proportions to fit in the suit hands, nothing about the hands is "unreal" that would exclude a suit and gloves. Hands in gloves can do whatever the film shows, so nothing seen on film about the hands would discount a suit. That said, gloves can be made with any amount of detail, so any detail you find can be explained by a good sculptor and painter. They can be foamed latex, or just plain old slip latex.

And finding a human with the long armspan negates any reason to explain or imagine arm extensions which could complicate a suit and make things harder. So hands down, no issue here, as far as i see.
Click to expand...

Point taken, and I actually already knew the response.

I suppose I just like to find new things that I haven't noticed at first glance before. :)
 
on the whole "seams are all but impossible to hide on short fur" to paraphrase it

Am I the only one who has ever put down carpet? Or even watched someone put down carpet?

Because hiding a seam that crosses a 20 ft room in carpet around half an inch or shorter and viewed from less than five feet is relative a cake walk.

I dont see why this would be any different in a suit or similar materials
 
Parcher;

relevence is in relation to the hypothesis. Your hypothesis, I would gather is proving "hoax", so all that's relevent to your arguments.

My hypothesis is different than yours, so what is relevent to mine is different than what's relevent to yours.

:)

Bill
 
Winston:

once you lay down carpet, does the floor walk around? I can lay flawless seams with the shortest hair on a figure that doesn't move. It's the movement of the human wearing the suit that mucks up the seams. And carpet is generally a kinky pile (meaning fibers not straight) and a kinky fiber hides a seam better than straight fibers common to fur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom