Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[rgann]

Bill

In case you've only seen snippets of the conversation Walas made 10 or so posts in one thread at BFF

Title:

The Patterson Subject; a Professional Observation

His user name was CJW

Lyndon,

I recall him purchasing the LMS DVD and talking with Bob Burns about the PGF, which indicates interest and analysis.

He doesnt state in his last post why he stopped he simply stopped.

Flawed perspective? Ok how about a flawed Oscar winning FX artist perspective.

Rick

 

[LTC8K6]

Dermal ridges - shot down
Butt print - shot down
Hairs - inconclusive at best
DNA - none found yet
Footprints - interesting at best
Pictures - inconclusive at best
Films - inconclusive at best
Sounds - inconclusive at best
Thrown sticks and rocks - give us a break
Encounter reports - interesting at best
Snelgrove? - give it a rest already, it's ridiculous

 

[rgann]

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.

Bill is this a accurate representation of your position? Is the PGF much better than what fx movie experts at the time could have done?

*This reminds me of the movie theater scene in annie hall, with Marshall Mcluhan* I happen to have Mr Bill Munns Right here....

As far as I can tell Bill hasnt come to a conclusion.

Rick

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

I don't think I argue against bigfoot or the PGF as much as I argue about them.
The main reasons the subject doesn't go away are that it's still profitable and people want to believe.

Astrology isn't going away either, and neither are psychics, dowsing, etc. That doesn't mean they are any more real than the boogeyman or bigfoot.

 

[carcharodon]

Bill


I recall him purchasing the LMS DVD and talking with Bob Burns about the PGF,

And? Bob Burns is famous for owning one of the original King Kong models. So what?

Unless you are refering to the original Lynyrd Skynyrd drummer. In which case he was a bit hairy I guess. LOL

What relevance does Bob Burns have to the P/G footage???? I'm lost.

which indicates interest and analysis.

No it doesn't. Walas never remotely went into the detailed analysis Bill Munns has done.

He doesnt state in his last post why he stopped he simply stopped.

He wasn't making much headway.

Flawed perspective? Ok how about a flawed Oscar winning FX artist perspective.
Rick

I missed his examples of hairy apelike creatures he produced???? I never did get to see his 'abominable snowman' from Caveman.............so that I could compare it to the P/G footage shot some 13 years previous.

 

[LTC8K6]

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.

And that it isn't obviously a real creature...you left that out.

 

[LTC8K6]

How do you do a detailed analysis of a subject with very little detail visible?

 

[Bill Munns]

AtomicMysteryMonster:

In the matter of other experts, here is what I understand are the foundation concerns or protocols:

1. generally, when an expert (not directly participating in a dispute or debate) is called upon to offer 'expert testimony or analysis", the party or person wanting to introduce that expert's testimony into the debate has the burden of both making the arrangements and paying any expert witness or consultant fees. So when other people say Stan, Rick, Bob Burns, etc. say this or that, in true debate procedure, they have the responsibility of bringing in the notes or analysis data.

2. If I am asked to find experts to review my notes, then there brings in the suspicion I went shopping for a friend who would back me up. Any expert I would designate would be suspect by skeptics because I suggested him. So generally the person who's work or effort in under scrutiny, as mine is here, would not be asked to find another expert for that reason. The presumption of regularity is that if those who disagree with me find the expert and bring in his testimony or analysis, it is at least "impartial" to my position (in reality of course presumed to be in favor of the position held by the other side, but not subjected to the same rigor of skepticism.)

3. If any expert does decide to enter this debate, and not charge a consulting fee, then they may be doing so for professional promotion (as they usually do when interviewed for documentaries). And if their agenda is promoting their status as "the expert", they may be accused of saying "it's a fake, I can tell, because I'm so good, I can spot a fake every time". A skeptic would attack their credibility on that basis, that their agenda is to promote the perception of their greatness above truth. If they take the time to provide a really thorough analysis, with written notes, and prepared to stand the withering criticism of skeptics, they will most likely charge a fee for their time, and that could easily run into the thousands of dollars. I've been retained as an expert witness before, in a legal dispute involving a makeup project, so I know the procedure.

These simply are issues that must be considered when someone likes to cite other experts and their opinions, as this debate rages on.

Bill

 

[carcharodon]

Dermal ridges - shot down

Incorrect. Merely an opinion they might not be. Not proven that they aren't.

Butt print - shot down

Incorrect. Merely an opinion that it is an elk. Not proven that it is.

Hairs - inconclusive at best

Inconclusive yes. Quite interesting though.

DNA - none found yet

Does that go for the 'alleged' Yeti...because there is unidentified DNA examined by Dr Brian Sykes at Oxford as picked up from Bhutan.

Footprints - interesting at best

Very interesting some of them.

Pictures - inconclusive at best

Yes.

Films - inconclusive at best

Yes but still interesting enough that YOU are debating one of them 40 years later.

Sounds - inconclusive at best

Yes, inconclusive but some of them are interesting.

Thrown sticks and rocks - give us a break

It probably would break 'something' if it connected.

Encounter reports - interesting at best

Very interesting at best. Very very interesting some of them.

Given all of the above, I fail to see where the "0" comes from.

 

[Bill Munns]

Hard to keep up with you guys.



Rick Post #12861

I know the thread. Just haven't read it all yet. Been in "reading and research overload these past two months)

on to your post #12863

Yes, I would say, if it's a suit, it's better than anything from the time. My opinion, as you requested. But I do keep qualifying "if it is a suit", because I am still undecided if it is.

LTC8K6 Poat #12867

"How do you do a detailed analysis of a subject with very little detail visible?"

the motion dynamics of furcloth, how it folds, how restrictive it is to underlying motion, may be studied in reference to the film. The film's image quality may allow this. Further study is needed, but the possibility is there, if new data on furtcloth studies can be brought to the issue.

Bill

 

[rgann]

And? Bob Burns is famous for owning one of the original King Kong models. So what? :

And was in a few gorilla suits and was someone Walas discussed the PGF with and could lend professional insight into what he saw. Thanks for the KK trivia I didn’t know that

http://bobburns.mycottage.com/credits.htm

If you have time can I send my posts over to so you to make sure you approve of there relevance?

Unless you are refering to the original Lynyrd Skynyrd drummer. In which case he was a bit hairy I guess. LOL What relevance does Bob Burns have to the P/G footage???? I'm lost.

I do love your style, sarcasm and you made yourself laugh but sorry to disappoint I am an Artimus Pyle fan, after all he survived the crash.

If you re-read my post (gotta promise) I said I recall Walas stating he had conversations about the PGF with Burns (A known Gorilla Guy ) and He purchased the LMS to get a detailed view, this was in contrast to your statement

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.

No it doesn't. Walas never remotely went into the detailed analysis Bill Munns has done.

And where did anyone say that he had?

I missed his examples of hairy apelike creatures he produced???? I never did get to see his 'abominable snowman' from Caveman.............so that I could compare it to the P/G footage shot some 13 years previous.

I believe he stated he had built 25 or so suits himself and half where fur suits, and add an Oscar.

Rick

 

[carcharodon]

I don't think I argue against bigfoot or the PGF as much as I argue about them.

You take the 'anti' stance. Therefore you argue AGAINST them.

The main reasons the subject doesn't go away are that it's still profitable

Hmmmmm, who here is making money off it then? I'm not.

and people want to believe.

Well good lordy I want to 'believe' in Spider-Man and Dracula having a ding dong. Doesn't mean I do. I can think of far more appetizing fantasies to believe in that are far far more interesting than just some dumb hairy arsed smelly ape like animal living in some remote parts of North America.

Astrology isn't going away either, and neither are psychics, dowsing, etc.

Not my problem. I don't care if they do or they don't. I don't spend every day arguing against them.

That doesn't mean they are any more real than the boogeyman or bigfoot.

Boogeyman and bigfoot? Geez, don't tell me you are STILL equating bigfoot with fairies, elves, demons, goblins...and boogeymen etc etc.

Don't you people consult the fossil records when you make these analogies??

Bigfoot/sasquatch ain't THAT far removed from some bona fide species KNOWN AND PROVEN to have existed at some time on planet Earth.

I give up.

Sweaty Yeti....they are all yours mate.

 

[RayG]

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.

I hope you're not suggesting the correct opinion is the longest one. What length makes an opinion worthwhile?

Bill Munns is but one of many makeup/fx artists/professionals that have offered an opinion on the Patterson film. Why would you put conditional restraints on those opinions?

1-0 to Bill Munns.

Big deal. No bigfoot (0), no suit (0).

RayG

 

[Crowlogic]

Ouote from other poster "The suit may have been one of a kind" Well hot damn I think we got ourselves a real sharp cookie in the person who thinks the suit might have been one of a kind! What pumpkin truck did that genius fall off of? One of a kind? Oh no! Oh no! no, no, no, no, no, no! Heck you can't swing a dead cat and not hit a PGF Bigfoot lookalike suite. Why just yesterday I darn near tripped and broke my wrist on my way to the dumpster because some bozo was throwing out his old PGF Bigfoot suit cause he just got a brand new one to tool around town in. I just wish he hadn't been so lazy and actually made the effort to toss the old one in the dumpster. Then on my way through Macy's I saw 2 girls fighting over who was going to get the last Evon Piccone designer PGF suit. That sucker wasn't cheap either. I don't know why they just didn't go down to Target where they had no less than 30 of them hot off the truck.

But seriously I often think of what my favorite Collage English Prof. used to say "If it was easy than every damn fool would be doing it." PGF film and suit = not many damn fools have been able to do it so guess it qualifies as difficult and unique.

 

[RayG]

You are closed minded.

Carch, do you believe science is close minded? Why or why not?

RayG

 

[carcharodon]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1875547d7191feea3c.gif

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

Ah well CrowLogic, that's a suit from the 2000s that obviously proves that the footage from '67 was a man in a suit and that Bob H was the one inside it!!

I never laughed so hard since my cat fell in the toilet and I pulled the chain.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What more can I say? I am in awe of your mental faculties, that you can solve a 40 year mystery with a mere look at a snippit of film.

Bill

It's not a mystery to most people..

 

[LTC8K6]

You take the 'anti' stance. Therefore you argue AGAINST them.

No, I don't. I take the undecided stance in discussions.
Occasionally I even take the stance that a believer is right about the item in question for the argument, such as with Sweaty's bending hand.

For instance, I just said that the "diaper butt" claim made by skeptics doesn't actually exist on Patty.

I also recently made the case that dfoot is wrong about certain flipped frames.

I don't think bigfoot is real, but I consider the evidence from an undecided point of view.

If I didn't, I wouldn't have much to discuss regarding the evidence presented and the claims made.

 

[LTC8K6]

Bigfoot/sasquatch ain't THAT far removed from some bona fide species KNOWN AND PROVEN to have existed at some time on planet Earth.

I give up.

I would too after that stunningly unsupported claim.

 

[carcharodon]

I hope you're not suggesting the correct opinion is the longest one. What length makes an opinion worthwhile?

One that is around 12 inches........or so my missus says.

Bill Munns is but one of many makeup/fx artists/professionals that have offered an opinion on the Patterson film. Why would you put conditional restraints on those opinions?

Bill Munns has done more than just offer a 'basic opinion'. He is the ONLY one I have read to have gone into expansive and detailed run downs, explanations, possibilities and theories etc etc.

We could make a book with his detailed remarks on what might, or might not, be seen in the P/G footage. No other FX expert, to my knowledge, has come anywhere near to spending the amount of time Bill Munns has on this subject so far.

As the other poster noted, Chris Walas didn't spend much time on the subject.

Big deal. No bigfoot (0), no suit (0).

RayG

True enough. Yet you don't seem as willing to head butt with those who say "suit", rather those who say "no suit".

Carch, do you believe science is close minded? Why or why not?

RayG

I wouldn't make a sweeping statement regarding science as a whole. Some of it is, some of it isn't.

This is a JREF forum though. We don't know who most of the posters are. They could be non scientific serial killers for all I know.