Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Bill Munns]

Carcharadon:

Thank you for your contribution.

You are correct in pointing out what so many seem to fail to grasp. While they vigorously criticize me for offering my opinions, despite all the notes and efforts to explain then, they ever so willingly embrace the opinion of other makeup artists who say "fake" with no justification beyond "in my professional opinion." curious double standard.

I would welcome any notes from any other makeup artist or film effects person, explaining their analysis and reasoning. I frankly wish others in my profession would join this discussion, and review the factual materials and fabrication processes of making suits.

Bill

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astrophotographer

""Yet I get the impression from some of your posting that you feel that it is not a man in a suit? Is that correct or not?""

Your impression is wrong. I don't know if the figure in the film is a human in a suit or the real thing. I am genuinely undecided at this time.

Clear enough, or is "undecided" not allowed?

Clear enough and thanks for being so open about what you think.

 

[carcharodon]

Just to clarify, that's actually your paraphrasing on my opinion, but it is correct. Just needed to qualify those are not my exact words, nor an exact quote of mine.

Yes Bill. I should have quantified that. It was not an actual quote of yours. It was basically just a concise rundown of your stance these past few pages.

You are not a 'footer'. You are not pro bigfoot. You are in the movie industry and you are an fx man. You have watched the P/G footage and have come to the conclusion that the footage you are watching is in no way an 'obvious' hoax, nor is it something that can be recreated easily or 'matter of fact'.......as some suggest. Those that 'argue' with you do so from the stance of biased pre conceived and set agendas and not through any real expertise or knowledge in the relevant field.

You could have Steven Spielberg here explaining what it takes to direct a movie but the majority of the posters here would still argue against him if his opinion didn't meet their one eyed, narrow minded, set and rigid outlook.

In this respect, this board is very very sad and disappointing and the posters reflect that.

Cheers.

 

[tsig]

Yes Bill. I should have quantified that. It was not an actual quote of yours. It was basically just a concise rundown of your stance these past few pages.

You are not a 'footer'. You are not pro bigfoot. You are in the movie industry and you are an fx man. You have watched the P/G footage and have come to the conclusion that the footage you are watching is in no way an 'obvious' hoax, nor is it something that can be recreated easily or 'matter of fact'.......as some suggest. Those that 'argue' with you do so from the stance of biased pre conceived and set agendas and not through any real expertise or knowledge in the relevant field.

You could have Steven Spielberg here explaining what it takes to direct a movie but the majority of the posters here would still argue against him if his opinion didn't meet their one eyed, narrow minded, set and rigid outlook.

In this respect, this board is very very sad and disappointing and the posters reflect that.

Cheers.

Well if Spielberg was wrong then yes.

So It's 1 to 1

 

[carcharodon]

Carcharadon:

Thank you for your contribution.

You are correct in pointing out what so many seem to fail to grasp. While they vigorously criticize me for offering my opinions, despite all the notes and efforts to explain then, they ever so willingly embrace the opinion of other makeup artists who say "fake" with no justification beyond "in my professional opinion." curious double standard.

Absolutely Bill.

I was there on BFF, for example, when Chris Walas was briefly posting.

He actually offered (comparatively) very little by way of explaining and constructively giving corroborating details to quantify his opinion that the P/G footage was a hoax.

He soon left without doing very much.

I would welcome any notes from any other makeup artist or film effects person, explaining their analysis and reasoning. I frankly wish others in my profession would join this discussion, and review the factual materials and fabrication processes of making suits.

Bill

Well...I saw John Vulich on X Creatures claiming the P/G 'suit wasn't very good.

Then his studio gave us this to 'prove' it was a fake:

 

[carcharodon]

Well if Spielberg was wrong then yes.

So It's 1 to 1

But even if he WASN'T 'wrong' you would still say he is wrong.

That's the point. You offer NO MORE quantifiable data and facts to back up your 'arguments' than those you lambast.

This is what people like you don't get. You think you are 'right'..........simply because you are posting on JREF and you think it gives you the right to claim your side of the argument as fact.

It DOESN'T.

 

[Bill Munns]

Carcharodon:

I do recall Chris trying to explain some of his ideas, but maybe missed some of his posts. So I wasn't aware of why he stopped. I did admire that he at least tried.

I wish others would, but it is perhaps a faint hope.

Bill

 

[Crowlogic]

If you think that one is bad try the official Morris recreation featuring Bob Heronimous.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

While they vigorously criticize me for offering my opinions, despite all the notes and efforts to explain then, they ever so willingly embrace the opinion of other makeup artists who say "fake" with no justification beyond "in my professional opinion." curious double standard.

That isn't exactly true. In an interview that I linked you to, Bob Burns discussed how Rick Baker and he went through a copy of the film frame-by-frame and noted that there were signs that a water bag was used. His wording implied that there were other details that they noticed. Similarly, Stan Winston expressed several details that he felt pointed towards a hoax in a video that I linked to in a reply to you. If your connection is too slow to let you watch the video, I can provide a transcript upon request.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Well...I saw John Vulich on X Creatures claiming the P/G 'suit wasn't very good.

Then his studio gave us this to 'prove' it was a fake:

[qimg]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/799047/packham1.jpg[/qimg]

Lyndon, are you aware that the "recreation" was (supposedly; I haven't seen the episode) done to show how a costume can look when filmed from a distance? Here is an animated .gif using footage from that particular episode of "X Creatures" supporting that claim. Of course, the fact that the costume has features that don't match up to Patty (red hair, no crest, no breats, different style of feet) also support the claim that the Optic Nerve suit wasn't meant to recreate how Patty looked.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Yes. You have read brief 'opinions'...based on pre concieved objections that 'bigfoot' doesn't exist...and no more than that.

You have NOT read very detailed and expansive analysis from Bill Munns' "piers" concerning the P/G footage.

Bill Munns has offered expansive detailed analysis and has answered open questions as and when..

He has offered far more detailed and expansive analysis than his 'piers' have.

1-0 to Bill Munns.

First off it is "peers" (an equal) and not "piers" (something you fish off of or dock a boat to). There are no extensive notes but they have examined the film close enough to agree that it could be a man in a suit. Why do you think this is so? What makes Munns right and them wrong?

As far as what Munns has presented, I haven't seen much that is impressive. He has already stated he is not an expert on the film and, from what I understand from his notes, he finds no evidence of a suit that he knows of. Unfortunately, that does not add up to anything. The suit may have been one of a kind and any flaws in it may not be visible at the films resolution. Just because Munns finds no flaws, does not mean that none exist.

Your scoreboard is an inaccurate appraisal of the situation. The real score is "bigfoot = 0" because that is all the evidence that has presented so far that is convincing enough to suggest that bigfoot exists as a real creature.

 

[Bill Munns]

AtomicMysteryMonster

"That isn't exactly true. In an interview that I linked you to, Bob Burns discussed how Rick Baker and he went through a copy of the film frame-by-frame and noted that there were signs that a water bag was used. His wording implied that there were other details that they noticed. Similarly, Stan Winston expressed several details that he felt pointed towards a hoax in a video that I linked to in a reply to you. If your connection is too slow to let you watch the video, I can provide a transcript upon request."

It would be helpful to all discussing this subject if notes were available, so they can be cited. Not trying to put the burden on you, just the observation that written appraisals by any expert benefit all concerned trying to study what the experts say.

Has Stan, Rick, or Bob Burns put together any analysis as a printed reference others can study? Just curious.

Bill

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

It would be helpful to all discussing this subject if notes were available, so they can be cited. Not trying to put the burden on you, just the observation that written appraisals by any expert benefit all concerned trying to study what the experts say.

Here's the article in which Bob Burns notes the time Rick Baker and he looked at a copy of the film. Here's the video where Stan Winston weighs in on the matter.

I should note that I was hoping that you had copied/put aside the URLs for those to aid in your analysis when you had first read them, which is why I didn't provide them in that response. I hope you find them as interesting as I did (Although I should note that my conclusion that the film is a hoax was reached long before I had read/watched those views).

Has Stan, Rick, or Bob Burns put together any analysis as a printed reference others can study? Just curious.

To my knowledge, no. However, you can contact Mr. Burns directly on the matter through his website. Perhaps he could put you in touch with Winston and Baker as well? If I'm reading the context of the article right, Burns and Baker did it more to satisfy their own curiousity than to present it to the world, hence the brief reference to it when Bob Burns was being interviewed about John Chambers' possible involvement in the film. I'm not sure if this is the case, but Stan Winston might've been approached by the people behind the TV special/DVD "Legend Meets Science" to give his take on the film rather than him going out of his way to spread his views. Please let us know if you contact/hear back from any of them (assuming they're okay with you mentioning it).

 

[Bill Munns]

AtomicMysteryMonster:

Just as an afterthought, would you happen to know where in Patty's body the evidence of water bags might be, according to Bob Burns and Rick?

The reason I ask is that traditionally, water bags in gorilla suits are in the belly, to give it a more natural kind of fluid sway, especially when the human walks on all fours pretending to knucklewalk. I don't see anything on Patty like that.

If Bob is referring to any fluidity in the breasts for the location of water pouches, (which I allowed might have been done with technology of the time), maybe you should have a long talk with Kitakaze, because he sure thinks the breasts are completely rigid.

So, just curious, if you know where the water bags Bob Burns saw are located on Patty's body.

Thanks,

Bill

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Just as an afterthought, would you happen to know where in Patty's body the evidence of water bags might be, according to Bob Burns and Rick?

I think he said it was in the stomach area, but only Mr. Burns could tell you for sure. I don't think I've ever seen a water bag in action before, so I can't really weigh in on the issue; I only bring his comments up when people comment on special effects artists not taking a close look at the film/providing certain details that make them feel that the film is a hoax.

 

[Astrophotographer]

That's the point. You offer NO MORE quantifiable data and facts to back up your 'arguments' than those you lambast.

This is what people like you don't get. You think you are 'right'..........simply because you are posting on JREF and you think it gives you the right to claim your side of the argument as fact.

It DOESN'T.

The problem is that there is no supporting evidence to suggest that bigfoot is real. In the PGF, one can conclude that it is a man (which exists) in a suit that could not be shown to be fake in this film (which could exist). One can also conclude that it is a film of a creature that nobody has been able to capture or kill throughout recorded history. There are no bodies, no skeletons, no graves, no bones, and nothing physical left behind. There is nothing to confirm the possibility of bigfoot existing as a real creature. To me that is a big quantity and that quantity is "0". As a result, the first conclusion, a man in a suit, is a far more likely answer. Until proponents can provide better data/evidence, then the prevailing opinion will always be a man in a suit no matter how much you type in caps/bold, stomp your feet, act indignant, etc.

 

[carcharodon]

Carcharodon:

I do recall Chris trying to explain some of his ideas, but maybe missed some of his posts. So I wasn't aware of why he stopped. I did admire that he at least tried.

He had a 'basic' argument but it seemed to have come from a flawed perspective and not through a great amount of detailed analysis of the actual footage.

He stopped when encountering fluent and intelligent repostes...from my recollection.

 

[carcharodon]

First off it is "peers" (an equal) and not "piers" (something you fish off of or dock a boat to). There are no extensive notes but they have examined the film close enough to agree that it could be a man in a suit. Why do you think this is so? What makes Munns right and them wrong?

I have not read any detailed analysis to the same extent. I have read sweeping and generalising comments from people who quite obviously do not think such a creature exists full stop. I have even heard John Vulich say the suit basically is crap. That is a SHOCKING statement. It's infinately superior to all of the bigfoot suits of the 1970s and 1980s.

As far as what Munns has presented, I haven't seen much that is impressive.

That's because you don't 'want' to. To you, bigfoot doesn't exist so nothing he says will 'impress' you. You are closed minded.

He has already stated he is not an expert on the film and, from what I understand from his notes, he finds no evidence of a suit that he knows of. Unfortunately, that does not add up to anything.

It adds up to the fact that the most detailed discussion yet seen by a 'relevant expert' has resulted in the opinion by said relevant expert that it isn't an obvious hoax. If it is a hoax then it is a very very clever one and much better than what the movie fx experts of the time could have conjured up. This is what intrigues Mr Munns. He doesn't poo poo it with little examination and write it off as nothing special. He's clearly correct becuase there has been NOTHING similar to the P/G footage in the 40 plus years.

In fact, hoax after hoax coming in today would point to the fact that they just can't 'hoax' 'em like they used to.

Even with low resolution, shaky, poor cell phone footage...there is nothing we debate like the P/G footage.

The suit may have been one of a kind

Hmmmm, one of a kind? So you are inferring the 'suit' was very special and something unlike anything else of the time, or even today? Isn't that what Bill Munns is saying?

Roger Patterson came up with a special unique type of suit? Is that it??

and any flaws in it may not be visible at the films resolution.

Please mention that to Dfoot the next time he sees clear 'rivets' around the breast area...as he has claimed before.

Oh yes, I haven't forgotten his previous claim. He sees 'rivets' around the breast and a clear 'separation' of the mask around the neck area....even though the resolution isn't too great?

Sheesh!

Your scoreboard is an inaccurate appraisal of the situation. The real score is "bigfoot = 0" because that is all the evidence that has presented so far that is convincing enough to suggest that bigfoot exists as a real creature.

There is actually quite a substantial amount of 'evidence'. Just no varifiable proof. You don't look for 'evidence'. You only look for 'proof'. Sweaty has been explaining this here for ages. There is a difference.

By the way, you are incorrect in claiming there is "0" evidence that is convincing. Plenty of people are convinced. This is why the subject does not go away and why you and people like you have to try and argue against it on a daily basis. You are fighting a losing battle. Bigfoot is not going away and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[LTC8K6]

No biggie anyways, costume feet can have toes.

And those costume feet would be subject to the same resolution problems. If we shouldn't see real toes, we shouldn't see costume toes.

I would think the fingers would show up better, even with motion blur, since they are probably longer and have more space between them, yet we get mittens.

Probably more. Patty's image in frame 352 is considered to be over 100' from the camera. Her image in frame 61 is considerably smaller, hence she's considerably farther away. Here's a few size comparisons from the LMS. The image on the far left isn't 61 but it's close. I'm surprised that we can see any toe definition at that distance. Lucky or what? Casts even more doubt on the accuracy of the Titmus map, imo.

What toe definition? AFAIK, toes are only seen in an altered still with a heavy blue cast to it. IIRC 61 and 62 are often confused and 62 has slightly better detail.

All we need are the actual full frames to compare Patty's size. I no longer have any idea how far Patty may be from the camera at any point, and I don't know how anyone else can tell, either. Relying on Titmus seems pretty shaky. His map clearly has problems. Gimlin only covered up a few tracks from the heavy rain, so who knows what tracks Titmus was following?

We're not even sure what lens was on the camera, are we?

About all I can do is look at full frames and say she's closer or farther, and I've already gotten in trouble trying to do that with the number of enlarged and cropped and re-centered frames out there.

There's nothing in the film that eliminates a man in a suit. That isn't going to change, imo. The only possibility for anything new to emerge is the release of the original 2 rolls of film from that day.

Until a suit is eliminated, that will remain the position of the scientific community regarding Patty, imo. That's as it should be.

 

[LTC8K6]

EDIT: DP due to board's slow response times