Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[carcharodon]

I would too after that stunningly unsupported claim.

Stunningly unsupported? It's actually 'supported' (*note, not 'proven') by numerous alleged witnesses. What they report isn't THAT far removed from some known species from the fossil record. We aren't talking about a 70 ft tall bright pink Pillsbury Doughboy type creature. No, we are talking about an upright primate apelike creature somewhat larger than a man on average.

What's the problem?

 

[rgann]

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.

Bill

I completely understand the disclaimer; you are in the process of sorting this out.

Knowing full well you are in the process of doing this and to the best of my memory after reading the 11 entries at BFF, you have not done this already, are you planning to point to a section of the 952 frames of the PGF (using time code or frames) from a specific source and describe muscle movement or something similar on a particular part of the body, allowing the rest of us to follow along and attempt to see what you see?

I read the method you are going to use to determine what can and can not be seen in your control group, but it would be interesting to see what you seeing in the source as evidence of movement that non stretch fur cloth could not perform.


Thanks
Rick

 

[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.

Well, they'd technically didn't take part in a true debate, but I think I see what you're saying. I should point out that we're getting their opinions through the work of others. For all we know, Bob Burns gave a Powerpoint presentation on his findings and the man who wrote the article cut it out for spacing issues. Stan Winston's comments were definitely edited down from a longer discussion, you can tell due to the shots where's he's sitting down in front of some props that aren't visible when he's standing in front of a screen with the P/G film on it. In short, we don't know how much of their analysis we're actually getting.

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.

Unless, of course, you provide doumentation (like a post on a forum) where someone with an opinion different than yours suggests that you seek out certian people. Failing that, providing a mix of experts and viewpoints could show a lack of bias in expert selection.

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.)

Um, you're not implying that someone else should contact Bob Burns are you? Personally, I'd think that something to the effect of "Hi, I'm also involved in the special effects field and I'd like to compare notes on the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film" would be more attractive to the reader rather than "Can I please drag you into a semi-heated discussion on a message board."

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.

Perhaps. However, I'd say that such comments could be deflected (or at the very least, blunted) by the expert providing some clear notes to back their comments. This is what I was getting at when I cited Burns and Winston; they gave specific reasons why they felt the film was a hoax.

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.

Maybe, but I should note that wouldn't fly here due to forum rules regarding requests for money. Although I admit that the possibility of something like what you've described could happen, I also feel that people here (and at other forums) have posted tons of information without requesting money.

 

[GT/CS]

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.

Here is an article that mentions stomach water bags on Patty.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/bigfoot.htm

Chambers, who currently resides in a Los Angeles nursing home in frail health, has recently told interviewers that he had nothing to do with the Bigfoot seen in Patterson's film. Nevertheless, the circumstantial evidence implicating Chambers's involvement is compelling. The Patterson film was shot in 1967, in the same timeframe that Chambers was working on Planet of the Apes. Chambers often did uncredited work, and would not have been opposed to a project in which his contributions would remain unknown. The Patterson Bigfoot shows evidence of having a water bag under the fur in the stomach area, a trick used to make a gorilla suit move like real flesh. This liquid stomach technique was developed by Charlie Gemora, with whom Chambers had worked at Paramount. Chambers created monster suits for Lost in Space in 1965 and 1966 which look very similar to the creature in the Patterson film, only with a different head. Chambers may have recycled them to fabricate the Patterson Bigfoot.

 

[RayG]

He is the ONLY one I have read to have gone into expansive and detailed run downs, explanations, possibilities and theories etc etc.

I seem to recall someone called Dfoot presenting expansive and detailed run downs, explanations, possibilities and theories (though I think in both cases they're hypotheses not theories), so I'd have to disagree that Bill is the ONLY one. In fact, I could suggest that Dfoot has gone a step further than Bill by actually trying to recreate a suitable (nice pun eh?) copy of Patty.

So neener neener boo boo to you too.

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

Not sure where I have engaged in head butting over the suit or no suit debate. What I have done is repeatedly point out that we have neither a body nor a suit. That leaves us with nothing but opinions, and opinions are like bellybuttons, everyone has one.

RayG

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Here is an article that mentions stomach water bags on Patty.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/bigfoot.htm

Thanks GT/CS. Personally, I suspect that the author used the Mark Chorvinsky article (which included quotes from Bob Burns) as the source for that. I say this due to the reference to Mr. Chorvinsky and how the section of the P/G film reads liked a condensed version of Chorvinsky's Chambers investigation. I wish I could find some definite notes on which of the movies that Charlie Gemora was involved in used water bags; I'd really like to see one in action.

Also, I found this quote from the article to be very interesting:

Bigfoot expert John Napier pointed out that the footprint casts were physiologically inconsistent with the height of the creature and the length of its stride as shown in the film.

 

[GT/CS]

Thanks GT/CS. Personally, I suspect that the author used the Mark Chorvinsky article (which included quotes from Bob Burns) as the source for that. I say this due to the reference to Mr. Chorvinsky and how the section of the P/G film reads liked a condensed version of Chorvinsky's Chambers investigation. I wish I could find some definite notes on which of the movies that Charlie Gemora was involved in used water bags; I'd really like to see one in action.

Also, I found this quote from the article to be very interesting:

AMM, I agree completely with your assessment of the article. It's the only relevant article I could find through Google. It seems there aren't many posting articles on-line about bigfoot stomach water bags. Found some other interesting stuff, though.

 

[Bill Munns]

rgann Post #12882

Yes, once I actually get to any filming which is compared to the PGF, I would reference tyhe exact frames or sequence, so any interested person could similarly inspect both the experiment and the PG Film frame or segment being compared to.

The source of evidence, for the motion or limitations of non-stretch fur, would be a variety of experiments of furcloth, taiolred into anatomical shapes, and subjected to specific motions, and filmed in motion. That's the concept. I expect to refine it as I get closer.

AMM:

thank you for understanding my remarks about the other experts. As you say, we don't know how much of their analysis we are getting, and obviously in the best of all worlds, it would help if we did.

About Bob Burns, I don't know him. So If I were contacting him, I would expect that his response would be to assume it's a "expert witness" sort of thing, and thus a fee to him would be reasonable. And I don't have any money to pay others now. If I did get a research grant, on the other hand, I would put into the budget a fee allowance for retaining experts for peer review. if that were the case, then, yes, I could ask him to evaluate the issue.

The money thing is not what I'm pushing, since I'm sure not getting any myself. I'm just saying, anyone else going to an expert should be prepared for that expert to say "and about my fee . . .?"

GT/SC

Thank you for the link to an article about the water bags. I'll get back to you about it soon.

 

[Bill Munns]

GT/CS

On the link, I found both the paragraph you quoted, and the paragraph before it. They are both copied as follows:

After lengthy investigations and interviews, journalist Mark Chorivinsky has found that the consensus among the movie-effects industry professionals is that the film depicts a prankster in a skillfully crafted costume. In fact, many state that the falsity of the Patterson film has been common knowledge in the business for years. The makeup artist Chorivinsky found most frequently associated with the Bigfoot film is John Chambers, a legendary elder statesman in the field of monster-making. Chambers is best known as the makeup mastermind behind the Planet of the Apes films. His innovative and highly articulated ape masks won him an Academy Award in 1968. Chambers created monster costumes for dozens of other movies and TV shows, including The Outer Limits and Lost in Space. Chorivinsky reports none of the makeup professionals he spoke with had firsthand knowledge that Chambers had created the Patterson Bigfoot, but a large number of them either felt that it was widely accepted that he was responsible for it, or else reasoned that Chambers was the only artist at the time skillful enough to have crafted such a costume.

Chambers, who currently resides in a Los Angeles nursing home in frail health, has recently told interviewers that he had nothing to do with the Bigfoot seen in Patterson's film. Nevertheless, the circumstantial evidence implicating Chambers's involvement is compelling. The Patterson film was shot in 1967, in the same timeframe that Chambers was working on Planet of the Apes. Chambers often did uncredited work, and would not have been opposed to a project in which his contributions would remain unknown. The Patterson Bigfoot shows evidence of having a water bag under the fur in the stomach area, a trick used to make a gorilla suit move like real flesh. This liquid stomach technique was developed by Charlie Gemora, with whom Chambers had worked at Paramount. Chambers created monster suits for Lost in Space in 1965 and 1966 which look very similar to the creature in the Patterson film, only with a different head. Chambers may have recycled them to fabricate the Patterson Bigfoot.

There's a few "problems" with the write-up.

"His innovative and highly articulated ape masks won him an Academy Award in 1968. " (in the first paragraph)

It's true, John won a special Academy Award for POTA, but his masks were neither "innovative" or "highly articulated". Stuart Freeborn's masks for 2001 Space Oddessy were the innovative and highly articulated ones. John's were old fashioned appliances with little plastic teeth stuck in the foam mouths, a technique no more advanced than the makeups of "The Wizard of Oz" thirty years before.

In paragraph two, the writer says "The Patterson Bigfoot shows evidence of having a water bag under the fur in the stomach area, a trick used to make a gorilla suit move like real flesh."

Curiously, there's no mention of water in the breasts, and Patty doesn't have a "gorilla-like" stomach. She would look pregnant if she had the water pouch in the stomach.

Based on the writer's error in his analysis of John's work and attributing Stuart Freeborn's innovations to John, I have to wonder how careful he was in his research. And If all assumption is that the water bags were in Patty's stomach, I sure would love to hear someone explain what frames show evidence of this.

Thank you for finding the reference.

Bill

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I'm also confused about the disconnect here. Nobody said you don't have the right to dismiss glaring flaws of the PGF subject as non-issues. It's very simple. You say the things like the breasts are not unnatural and you are asked what you base that opinion on. I can live with your opinion no problem. But, Munns, I would like to understand it. Where it's coming from and why.

I think that Mr. Munns would be doing himself a favor by going into more detail on his opinions when questioned. Here's a simple, fictional response that I think would satisfy kitakaze's curiosity: "I don't feel that they're unrealistic because I once saw a woman with breats like that. Yeah, I know that my not having any proof of this other than a personal claim doesn't give my story any weight, but it's all I've got. To be honest, my feeling that the breasts look realistic doesn't mean that I think what's seen on the film is real, seeing as how they could've been duplicated with the special effects technology that was available in the 60's."

I also think your reconstruction of Giganto reflected your beliefs about a possible connection to bigfoot.

I'd disagree, based on the various pictures of Gigantopithecus-related artwork back when I did that post on supposed Bigfoot handprint casts. For example, I know of another Giganto statue/model that depicts the animal standing on two legs. However, I must admit that it's possible that its position was inspired by Mr. Munns' statue. I should also point out that a quadrapedal Giganto statue was used in a museum exhibit on "mythic creatures" (which included many references to Bigfoot, Chupacabras, etc.). The only other statue that I know of which depicts Gigantopithecus in a quadrapedal stance can be found here.

Amusingly enough, I also stumbled across someone who definitely copied the Munns statue for their "wildman" drawing.

If I recall correctly, he said that his Giganto reconstruction wasn't influenced by Bigfoot during his appearance on "Let's Talk Bigfoot" and didn't seem to support the "Bigfoot = Gigantopithecus" idea (although he did allow that it could be possible). As I recall, he did note that he didn't agree with the idea that Gigantopithecus was quadrapedal, though.

On a barely-related note, here are two interesting links that I found while gathering information for this post.

 

[Bill Munns]

AMM:

Okay, here we go.

On Giganto, you seem to be on track with me, and I thank you. I really wasn't thinking about Bigfoot, just Russ Ciochon's specs for referencing asian apes moreso than Aftican ones, and the skeleton was a sort of mix between a modren gorilla and a prehistoric baboon called Theropithecus ostwaldi , which was about as big as a gorilla.

On Giganto, being or not being a quadreped, I really mean I don't know, because the big jaw is a bit distorted, and no fossils below the jaw are known. So if the big jaw is distorted (I know because I had to "undistort it" to make my skull mockup work) then maybe the jaw is also wider in the back, in real life, and if so, could be a bipedal creature. We really won't know till we find a full jaw undistorted, or a skull back with the hole for the spinal cord, or body fossils. So I deferred to Russ in his opinion Giganto is a quadreped, but I would not say I agree conclusively. I don't know, from my own analysis.

On the breasts, (the issue I can't ever seem to run away from.)

They satisfy the basic mammalian primate requirements of bilatteral, on the ventral side of the upper torso (The thorax) and one pair. So that's "real".

On the comparisons to any known primate species, they are not the same, but neither is the bipedal posture and general anatomical configuration. So if they differ from other primates like great apes, I think, "well other body aspects also differ, so there is plausability the breasts can differ too, and be real".

Similarly for human comparisons. There are enough elements of the figure anatomy(the skull, and potential sagital crest, the heavy shoulders and hunched head, the fur on the full body) that differ from humans that if the breasts differ from being lower than normal human models, well some other differences do exist on the figure so differing breast height could simply be another difference.

So I just don't see anything so glaringly "unreal" that I can confidently say "that can't be real."



bill

 

[captain koolaid]

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

There is no evidence that it does exist. Not yet. There has to be more than stories, hoaxes, and dubious "signs"... and there is no more than that.

Bill Munns has offered expansive detailed analysis...

What is the point? The only analysis that can have any real value, if at all, is that done by those such as Dfoot and Chris Walas, et al. The "P/G footage" is worthless. It is a hoax. A staged home movie, until established otherwise. Analysis of copies, of generation who knows what, can only be considered of interest in the history of hoaxes.

Establish the veracity of the original film, as per the standard in suspected hoaxes, and then such an "analysis" might have merit. Bigfootism needs to produce the original. Do that, and one can proceed from the given that Patterson, Gimlin, and associates are liars, hucksters, or dupes. It is histrionics over fetishes, and selective "skepticism", by Cultists, that is ensuring that no enquiry by a real scientific body, will ever eventuate.

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

Who is Piers?

 

[captain koolaid]

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.

How about some dumb hairy arsed smelly ape like animal with associated light "orbs", and exotic noises?

...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.

"Believe. Or believe not. There is no try." If I accept the Force, will Bigfoot accept me?

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.

Like Unicorns and Horses?

 

[captain koolaid]

I think you're being over-generous. Lately, I'm not sure any more that there is a film. All these video clips, animated gifs, enhanced still frames, etc. could be part of an elaborate hoax. Can anyone say for certain where the PGF is and if it actually exists?

Exactly. Bottom line, there is no weight in the PGF. As there is no film.

 

[captain koolaid]

...so I'd have to disagree that Bill is the ONLY one. In fact, I could suggest that Dfoot has gone a step further than Bill by actually trying to recreate a suitable (nice pun eh?) copy of Patty.

RayG

Point.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

About Bob Burns, I don't know him. So If I were contacting him, I would expect that his response would be to assume it's a "expert witness" sort of thing, and thus a fee to him would be reasonable. And I don't have any money to pay others now. If I did get a research grant, on the other hand, I would put into the budget a fee allowance for retaining experts for peer review. if that were the case, then, yes, I could ask him to evaluate the issue.

I think that you could avoid giving the impression that you're looking for an "expert witness" by presenting yourself as just being curious. You could just say that you were under the impression that nobody in the special effects industry had given a specific reason for concluding that the film was a hoax until someone mentioned him to you. Then you could ask him about his conclusions and offer to share some of your viewpoints on the matter if he's interested. Then, if you both chat for a bit, you could thank him and say that you think that others would be interested in hearing his views. Then you can ask permission to repost what he said and to give him proper credit.

If you want, I could point you towards a website that interviewed him and you could ask them if anyone asks for payment in exchange for an interview (If I were the one writing the e-mail, I'd note that I was just asking out of curiosity and not looking for money/an opportunity). I do think it's neat that you'd do it if you know you had enough money to pay for the services of an "expert witness," though.

I should clarify that the reason I push for you to contact him is because I think it's a shame that you seem to want certain information, but yet don't seem to fully pursue it. I doubt you mean for it to come off that way, but I think this is part of the reason that some people feel that you dodge certain questions and issues. The reason I haven't e-mailed him is because I don't really care that much about the issue of water bags being seen in the film.

Oh, and thanks for clearing up the information on your thoughts on Gigantopithecus and Patty's breasts.

 

[JohnWS]

Bill - what are your thoughts as to George Lofgren's patented method of setting natural fur in a flexible rubber backing? The process considerably pre-dates the PG Film. As far as I know the resulting fur has been used for fake horses as well as animation puppets. I've not seen you mention it even to dismiss it's possible use.

Is it unsuitable for costume use, even if used as inserts for areas under particular stress (just throwing that one out as speculation, if for some reason you would not envisage an entire costume being constructed of it for some reason)?

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, I'm here because I don't want to discuss bigfoot and the PGF. All I want to do is wait for a believer to show up so I can holler "Show me the proof!" at him over and over again and smirk at him over the net.

In fact, I just spent about 50 dollars on original K-100 manuals because I'm not interested in learning anything about the PGF.

 

[SweatyYeti]

carcharodon wrote:

Hey Sweaty. How ya doing mate? I see you are still here running rings around these sad little boys.

Hey Lyndon...my buddy, how you doin'?! Nice to see you back here!

Yeah, I've been having some fun with the skeptic's here...did you see my debate with LTC, about their beloved "default position"? The 'default position' which means absolutely nothing!
LTC had to, as other skeptics have before him, refuse to answer my questions...as things got a little sticky for him. He had to "get out of the kitchen", so to speak.

They have been telling everybody who will listen every day for years that bigfoot doesn't exist. You'd think they'd get bored with it by now and go off and do something constructive instead. I guess they have nothing else to do with their time.

Going beyond just saying "Bigfoot doesn't exist", they keep saying "there is no evidence for Bigfoot's existence"....yet they'll spend countless hours debating the existence of a creature, for which, there...supposedly...is not a shred of evidence.
That just doesn't make any sense. I, personally, would never debate the existence of Unicorns...because...you guessed it....there is no evidence for their existence.
Bigfoot, on the other hand, we do have evidence for. (Whether or not there actually is such a creature, though, is still questionable.)

Quick recap of the last few pages:

Bill Munns:

"I have offered detailed analysis based on my expertise in the relevant fields and in my considered opinion the P/G footage cannot be easily written off as a hoax."

Suitniks:

"I don't understand what you are talking about Bill because your analysis is way too detailed and expansive and goes right over my head but er, you're wrong......um because I say so. Oh yeah and because bigfoot doesn't exist. Nyah nyah"

Good stuff....as usual, Lyndon!


Edited to add:

A fresh example of what I just mentioned..from a few minutes ago...Captain Koolaid...

There is no evidence that it does exist.

Thanks, Cap'n!

 

[Drewbot]

Bill- I was under the impression that POA masks were groundbreaking. It sounds like you don't think so. Are you saying that Chambers work was the equivalent of the Wizard of Oz technology?

http://theforbidden-zone.com/news/chambersnews.shtml[/url] ]When he worked on ``Planet of the Apes'' in the 1960s, Chambers recalled in a recent interview how he spent hours at the Los Angeles Zoo doing research.

``It was the best way I could think of for capturing the elastic facial expressions of the apes,'' he said.

His preparation led him to develop a new type of foam rubber that was easier to work with than the material commonly used at the time. He also created facial appliances that could be attached to actors' faces to form primate features.

For his efforts he became only the second makeup artist to receive an honorary Academy Award. A competitive category for makeup was established in the 1980s.

Chambers also developed a new technique for making ``bald caps'' for actors. His invention, made from liquid plastic sprayed onto a metal form of an actor's head, remains the industry standard.