Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

Correa:

I thank you for the detailed response.

Somehow I feel you may still be missing the point that I don't feel anything about the breasts even needs to be discussed further. I'm not arguing for real or fake. My position is simply that, if fake, I know they could be made with 1967 materials, absolutely, no debate. If real, and I presume the figure is a mammal, then I don't see anything so odd or unreal that I would think "this can't be a real mammal." So it's a non-issue to me, at this point.

Same for judgments of skill of Patterson, or anybody. As soon as I say "if it's a suit", there is an implied acknowledgement that whoever made the suit had the ability to do so, because we see the result (if it is a suit). So who the suitmaker is, frankly, is also a non-issue to me. If it's a suit, the skill of the maker is evidenced by the result.

So my only concern now is material physical capabilities, and how they are visually represented on a film with low resolution.

Bill

I would say a diaper butt and ridiculous pair of rock-hard, too low, hairy cans aren't the best result.

The breasts are completely hirsute, totally rigid, set in the middle of the torso, and stick straight out. What primate has such breasts naturally?

 

[Crowlogic]

Reported

GT/CS what is it that has been reported?

 

[Bill Munns]

kitakaze:

"I would say a diaper butt and ridiculous pair of rock-hard, too low, hairy cans aren't the best result."

Did I say anything about a "best result". I made no appraisal of the quality of the result, only that the result exists, and skill equivalent to the result was the source (if it is a suit).

"What primate has such breasts naturally?"

I said mammal, not primate, in my quote. But I'm not trying to prove anything about the breasts. Please ask somebody who is.

 

[kitakaze]

kittybozo

Reported

GT/CS what is it that has been reported?

Sweaty apparently thinks goofy insults might make up for the weakness of his arguments. Personally, I think flinging poo will just make me smell like crap.

 

[tsig]

Correa:

I thank you for the detailed response.

Somehow I feel you may still be missing the point that I don't feel anything about the breasts even needs to be discussed further. I'm not arguing for real or fake. My position is simply that, if fake, I know they could be made with 1967 materials, absolutely, no debate. If real, and I presume the figure is a mammal, then I don't see anything so odd or unreal that I would think "this can't be a real mammal." So it's a non-issue to me, at this point.

Same for judgments of skill of Patterson, or anybody. As soon as I say "if it's a suit", there is an implied acknowledgement that whoever made the suit had the ability to do so, because we see the result (if it is a suit). So who the suitmaker is, frankly, is also a non-issue to me. If it's a suit, the skill of the maker is evidenced by the result.

So my only concern now is material physical capabilities, and how they are visually represented on a film with low resolution.

Bill

If you have a point just make it. So much noise so little information.

 

[Bill Munns]

tsig:

"If you have a point just make it. "

I did. it's the last sentence. My point.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Bill Munns:

If real, and I presume the figure is a mammal, then I don't see anything so odd or unreal that I would think "this can't be a real mammal."

You don't see anything odd about the lumps on the left leg, or the apparent disconnect between the upper arm and the shoulder ?

Here is another odd .. ( sorry I have to go back to the breasts, or in this case ' breast ' )

During the ' turn and look ' when the arm swings to the rear, the right breast is not pulled to the rear, as it naturally would be ..
The cleavage between the breasts can also be seen to be off to the right ..

I'm not going to waste my time with frame captures and animations, since you ignore the evidence that screams fake...

 

[Bill Munns]

Diogenes:

"You don't see anything odd about the lumps on the left leg, or the apparent disconnect between the upper arm and the shoulder .."

I agree the leg is odd. I just don't have an opinion on what causes it to appear so odd. You seem to think I must have an answer. I don't, on this, or the shoulder.


I'm not going to waste my time with frame captures and animations, since you ignore the evidence that screams fake..

"screams fake" is an opinion. I respect yours. My perceptions and opinions of "fake" differ from yours. Why can't you live with that?

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze:

"I would say a diaper butt and ridiculous pair of rock-hard, too low, hairy cans aren't the best result."

Did I say anything about a "best result". I made no appraisal of the quality of the result, only that the result exists, and skill equivalent to the result was the source (if it is a suit).

Why are you asking me if you said anything about 'best result'? You said:

If it's a suit, the skill of the maker is evidenced by the result.

No, that sentence does not contain an appraisal of the suit. Does this?:

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

"What primate has such breasts naturally?"

I said mammal, not primate, in my quote. But I'm not trying to prove anything about the breasts. Please ask somebody who is.

Yes, dogs can have lots of lots of boobies all over their torso. Patty was a land otter, maybe? Now, I'm not saying there is something you're trying to prove using the breasts. But, you did say:

If real, and I presume the figure is a mammal, then I don't see anything so odd or unreal that I would think "this can't be a real mammal."

1)Do you presume the figure is a mammal but not a primate?

2) I'm explaining what is odd and unreal about Patty's breasts and asking you why you don't think they are odd or unreal as you state and what that opinion is based on. Do you understand?

 

[tsig]

Diogenes:

"You don't see anything odd about the lumps on the left leg, or the apparent disconnect between the upper arm and the shoulder .."

I agree the leg is odd. I just don't have an opinion on what causes it to appear so odd. You seem to think I must have an answer. I don't, on this, or the shoulder.


I'm not going to waste my time with frame captures and animations, since you ignore the evidence that screams fake..

"screams fake" is an opinion. I respect yours. My perceptions and opinions of "fake" differ from yours. Why can't you live with that?

Because there is no other evidence of large unknown primates living in the woods.

 

[Bill Munns]

kitakaze:

You are taking two quote from entirely different discussions, and clearly confused. You said "best results" I didn't. and the quotes of mine don't mean what you misconstrue them to mean.

for example, where you quote me as saying "And I, for one, see the odds of a suit going south, on a one way ticket. ", that was at the end of a probability study, based on an analysis of probable or improbable issues of circumstance, and "best results" of making a suit was not part of that discussion, so the quote has no relevence to your "best results" confusion.

In answer to your numbered questions:

1)Do you presume the figure is a mammal but not a primate?

My generalized assumption is it's a mammal, and if pressed for a better guess, I'd say primate most likely.

2) I'm explaining what is odd and unreal about Patty's breasts and asking you why you don't think they are odd or unreal as you state and what that opinion is based on. Do you understand?

I understand. I don't have to defend my opinion, or my right to express it. My opinion differs from yours. Live with it.

 

[tsig]

kitakaze:

You are taking two quote from entirely different discussions, and clearly confused. You said "best results" I didn't. and the quotes of mine don't mean what you misconstrue them to mean.

for example, where you quote me as saying "And I, for one, see the odds of a suit going south, on a one way ticket. ", that was at the end of a probability study, based on an analysis of probable or improbable issues of circumstance, and "best results" of making a suit was not part of that discussion, so the quote has no relevence to your "best results" confusion.

In answer to your numbered questions:

1)Do you presume the figure is a mammal but not a primate?

My generalized assumption is it's a mammal, and if pressed for a better guess, I'd say primate most likely.

2) I'm explaining what is odd and unreal about Patty's breasts and asking you why you don't think they are odd or unreal as you state and what that opinion is based on. Do you understand?

I understand. I don't have to defend my opinion, or my right to express it. My opinion differs from yours. Live with it.

You really do have to defend your position if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
I say your view of the PGF is wrong. Study optics it will tell you that you cannot see what you claim.

 

[Crowlogic]

You really do have to defend your position if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
I say your view of the PGF is wrong. Study optics it will tell you that you cannot see what you claim.

TSIG, You've been saying that Bill Munns needs to study optics. What are your credentials concerning the study of optics?

 

[Bill Munns]

tsig

"You really do have to defend your position if you expect anyone to take you seriously. "

I have explained my thoughts and opinions extensively, over the past two months, on other forums as well as here, the past week. I am content with the people who do take me seriously, and I don't mind that you are not among them.

Crowlogic:

Thank you for the comment. I too would be fascinated to know of tsig's own knowledge of "optics".

Care to enlighten us, sir?

 

[rgann]

Bill

Welcome to the forum and hats off to you for responding to many of the posts.

I am curious if you have read this assessment by W. H. Fahrenbach on kodachrome resolution and if so whats your take? Doesnt this limit the range of details such as muscle movement, thigh hernias etc. that can be claimed to be seen in the PGF.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/filmres.html

Heres a brief snippet:

The emulsion that was used by Patterson was, as far as is known, Kodachrome II. That film has a stated resolving power of 63 lines / mm. In addition, Nyquists's Sampling Theorem states in its simplest fashion, that for a signal (minimal image element) to be detected, you need in effect the space of two lines, which brings the resolving power to 31.5 lines / mm. Stated differently, the smallest interval that can reliably resolved (under optimal conditions) in this film is (1 mm = 31,000m) divided by 31.5 lines = 31.7 micrometers or microns on the film. This is the physically limiting value for Kodachrome II, below which you may see assorted patterns that are part of the emulsion, but that carry no image information and are, by definition, background noise. Advanced image manipulation techniques can modify contrast, edge sharpness and other aspect of the image, but cannot generate signal from noise.

**I would have preferred cheese eaters to gerbels

Rick

 

[captain koolaid]

I should also say that the promised $1000 payment to BH was far in excess of what you would pay some friend to wear the suit in a non-hoax documentary. The $1000 payment was hush money for an implied commitment to keep it secret. People have said that $1000 in 1967 has the modern equivalent value of $10,000. That is ridiculous money to pay some non-professional guy to wear a suit for a few minutes. It would still be a ton of money even if you filmed all day trying to get at least one great take.

BH was to be paid as a participant in a hoax, and this was understood from the start. That's the way I am interpreting his testimony.

What is the earliest approximate time frame in which it is/was known that RP and BG were engaged in making a recreation of the "Roe Encounter"? Likewise a fictionalised doco of the "Bigfoot Hunting Adventures of Roger Patterson"?

 

[captain koolaid]

It's comparison time....thanx to Dfoot......


Here is 'Paddy Stiffy'....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/stiffpadding2.gif[/qimg]


...and here is 'Patty Flexy'......

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattywalk56.gif[/qimg]

Yes. The padding does appear to be looser in the Patty-suit leg, than Dfoot's.

 

[rgann]

Hi Bill

One other question after reading Part 11 at BFF today, I found your list of issues “off the table” for assessment to be interesting. I would like make certain I would be accurately stating your position if I quoted you as saying:

1.Feet seen in the PGF could be fabricated with late 1960’s technology and materials
2.Breasts and breast movement seen in the PGF could be fabricated with late 1960’s technology and materials
3.Physical size of Patty is not outside range of human in a suit.
4.Bipedal Locomotion seen in the PGF is not outside the range of human capabilities
5.All body motions including hands, fingers and mouth could be accomplished using technology from the late 1960’s

On reading this I was a little surprised there wasnt a uproar at BFF, these five items are the flying buttresses of the PGF cathedral.

If I have gotten any of these wrong and or am stating them incorrectly let me know.

Here is a link for anyone interested in reading Bill's entry in full

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=22138

Thanks
Rick

 

[Bill Munns]

rgann:

"I am curious if you have read this assessment by W. H. Fahrenbach on kodachrome resolution and if so whats your take? Doesnt this limit the range of details such as muscle movement, thigh hernias etc. that can be claimed to be seen in the PGF."

Thanks for the reference to the kodachrome resolution. I had not read it, but will put it into my notes for reference.

Regards your question about limiting range of detail that can be extracted, I agree it does. My hope is to find out more about how much it limits perception of detail, from a testable position. And Actually, as i have tried so often to explain (to Diogenes, and others), I don't buy the hernias thing at all. And I don't see movements I can say with singular determination are muscle motions. I'm still studying that issue myself. But it seems others keep taking my opinions beyond my intentions and presuming I am making some conslusive thing about musculature. I actually want to see what real animal musculature does look like, at the low film resolution, before I try to decide in any conclusive way. Others here seem impatient with my method, and seem to think they can order a conclusion like they can order a pizza.

Cheese eaters? I could agree with that too.

On your followup post:
1. Feet like what I see could be fabricated.
2. breasts, ditto.
3. my study suggested a human could fit in "Patty", yes, and so I'm okay with that.
4. The locomotion thing I don't endorse either way. it's not my area of expertise, so my position really is "no opnion" on the "compliant gait".
5. yes, on the hands, mouth, etc. Could have been done then.



Bill

Missed this one:

"these five items are the flying buttresses of the PGF cathedral.


Others can still argue these points as they like. I'm just saying I have no further interest in arguing them, because the no longer impact on my study.

 

[captain koolaid]

Strike- superfluous post.