Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Bill Munns]

Replies, starting with

AMM post 312896

My intention, in regards to contacting any other makeup experts, would be to first have some experiments done, and then ask them to appraise those experiments and the results, first before any appraisal of how the experiments relate to the PGF.

JohnWS

I'm not aware of the patent. Got a patent number, by chance?

Drewbot Post #12900

"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?"

Any appliance or prosthetic makeup is a challenge. Doing a prosthetic makeup for the run of a movie is a formidible challenge. Doing that for a full cast, with a makeup crew up to 175 people, is a monumental challenge, and John succeeded at that monumental challenge. His special Oscar is well deserved.

But the essential process he used was established 30 years before. He may have made subtle refinements, but subtle refinements are not generally considered "innovations"

But his described innovations did not imapct on the industry as did the work of Stuart Freeborn, and Dick Smith. Once the makeup effects revolution started in the late 70's and went into full bloom in the 80's, everyone was using the innovations of Freeborn and Smith, as well as the new innovations Rick Baker and Stan Winston developed, inspired by the innovations of Freeborn and Smith. So in that sense, the real "innovative" ape makeups of the 60's were Stuart's not John's.

John's Bald caps were the industry "gold standard " for many years. Yes, but his special award was not for that.

Bill

 

[kitakaze]

I'll respond to your post later this evening, Astro....but for now...I noticed you didn't answer this very simple question...



How about a simple "yes" or a "no"?

Astro, I'm sure it's not necessary but I will point out anyway that Sweaty has begun his most used games with you. It doesn't get any more classic Sweaty than this. You got a "later..." and "where's my 'yes' or 'no'?" combo.

You of course realize that Sweaty's priority and preference is dithering with semantics and obscuring the facts rather than sincere critical debate.

Evidence doesn't need to rise to the level of proof for it to carry weight.

Are you aware of this, Astro?

I personally would not allow Sweaty to proceed with his games and point out that...

1) There is no evidence of significant weight for bigfoot.

2) He knows the 'weak coffee' fallacy, he's just in denial.

Or maybe just ignore his attempts to get an answer from you for a few months...

 

[JohnWS]

JohnWS

I'm not aware of the patent. Got a patent number, by chance?

No - I've had no success tracking that down (on-line), and I have tried during my 'research'. I would have liked more details. On-line (thanks to AMM who provided me with some more) & literary sources seem very limited (unsurprisingly).
I had hoped you would be able to expand on it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I'll respond to your post later this evening, Astro....but for now...I noticed you didn't answer this very simple question...

How about a simple "yes" or a "no"?

Yes I am aware that evidence does not have to rise to the level of proof to carry weight. Evidence is part of the process of establishing facts.

Calling something "evidence" is part of the problem. What you call evidence may be subjective and capable of being interpreted in different ways. Some evidence can be planted or perjured. Other evidence can be poorly gathered making it tainted and giving erroneous results. This kind of evidence carries little weight if it can not be established as quality evidence. If evidence has quality to it, then it can have weight.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I personally would not allow Sweaty to proceed with his games and point out that...

1) There is no evidence of significant weight for bigfoot.

2) He knows the 'weak coffee' fallacy, he's just in denial.

I am quite aware of his argument and tactics. I am also aware of the simple math of 1 X 0 =0 and 1,000,000X0 still equals 0. If evidence has poor quality it is the same thing as carrying no weight in trying to establish facts.

 

[Bill Munns]

JohnWS

"No - I've had no success tracking that down (on-line), and I have tried during my 'research'. I would have liked more details. On-line (thanks to AMM who provided me with some more) & literary sources seem very limited (unsurprisingly).
I had hoped you would be able to expand on it."

The only patent I was aware of related to stretch fur and fabrics was one held by Reed Merridith, the company that became NFT today and makes the stretch furcloths. So I was only aware of their development of what the industry uses now.

I will try a patent search based on the name you provided, and se if anything comes up.

Bill


John:

Tried the search at the patent website. Nothing came up under the name you cited .

Bill

 

[JohnWS]

Thanks - I read about it many years ago. I've basically been Googling his name, patent, fur etc. No luck.

 

[JohnWS]

Hey Bill - try 'george lofgren, taxidermy' at least it shows I wasn't making it up . In fairness I think AMM already sent me a link to that page my random Googling has just pulled up.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Yes I am aware that evidence does not have to rise to the level of proof to carry weight.

So it then follows that a piece of evidence may indicate only a chance, or a likelihood that something is true, when in fact it may not be true.

In the case of Bigfoot...we can indeed have evidence for it's existence, without any Bigfeets actually existing.

Calling something "evidence" is part of the problem. What you call evidence may be subjective and capable of being interpreted in different ways.

A piece of evidence certainly can be interpreted in different ways....but not correctly interpreted in different ways.
Just because people can evaluate evidence differently doesn't mean that there isn't a correct and an incorrect way to evaluate evidence.

There is a scientific method to evaluating and weighing a piece of evidence...therefore, it's not a subjective matter...i.e, "in the eye of the beholder".
That principle applies to Art....and art and science are two extremely different things.

If evidence has quality to it, then it can have weight.

How does one determine whether or not a piece of evidence is a "quality" piece of evidence? Does one look for the "Union Label"??

I am also aware of the simple math of 1 X 0 =0 and 1,000,000X0 still equals 0.

That's true....if individual pieces of evidence...like eyewitness accounts...carry no weight whatsoever, then a collection of similar weightless pieces of evidence would add up to nothing, also.
But that doesn't apply to all eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot, because some eyewitness accounts do carry weight. And collectively, their weights add up.


I found this quote from an astronomy article....

UCLA astronomers have discovered evidence that planet formation may have occurred or may be occurring around the binary system sigma Herculis.

The evidence indicates only a probability that planets are forming...not proof that they are forming....hence the use of the word "may" in that statement.

The evidence indicates a degree of probability that planets are forming, when, in actual fact, they may not be.

You can show all the highly subjective enhancements of the PGF you want but it is not proof that it isn't a hoax.

So what? As I stated in my post earlier today...

On a discussion board...or thread, in this case...Proof is not needed in order for evidence to be discussed, analysed, and weighed.

Evidence doesn't need to rise to the level of proof for it to carry weight.

The highest goal of a member of a discussion board is to help analyse, and weigh, the evidence....while the lowest goal is for a member to sit back, fold his arms, and say "Where's the proof, got a body?"

Again...it's not all about "proof", Astro.
We don't have undeniable proof of Bigfoot's existence...and it's not a requirement of anybody to try to prove Bigfoot does indeed exist, when we (myself included) don't know that it exists.

The purpose of these discussions is simply to try to determine the likelihood of it's existence, and the likelihood that Patty is either a man or a real Bigfoot.
That all revolves around analysing and weighing all the individual bits of evidence, one by one...because evidence indicates probabilities, and likelihood.

Bill Munns is doing exactly that...analysing the evidence, one step at a time.

If you, or anyone else, wants to hang around and just say "where's the proof...got a body?" , feel free to do so, but you are...in fact...aiming LOW.

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa:

I thank you for the detailed response.

You are welcome but it was not detailed...

Somewhere among the thousands of posts composing this and other bigfoot threads my patience to write detailed arguments faded away.

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.

Here we have different approaches.
You are addressing a single aspect- how costumes built with materials and techniques available at the 60's would perform if filmed under similar conditions.

Personally, I favor a broader approach, where several other aspects are taken in to account. I think that they are all interconnected. When evaluating "how to build Patty", I can't help but looking in to the figure and think about its anatomy; I must also think on how such a hoax could be planned and executed, then I must consider the whole background of the film and so on. Yes, I know you are addressing just the "costume angle", but I can't help but wonder, for example, how I could not take in to account PGF's fishy story even if I considered Patty "realistic". Its a chain of interconnected issues. When the whole picture is considered, I can't help but deciding its a hoax, even if individually one or two aspects would not match with such scenario.

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.

You must note that some aspects of your reasonings -regardless of their final conclusions- such as the respect for dedicated and talented amateurs must be stressed. They can help preparing a better case by dumping the weak lines of reasoning and evidences, such as the "simple cowboy" line.

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

Bill

I understand that. I hope you understood my positions -even if you do not agree with them.

 

[Bill Munns]

Correa:

"I understand that. I hope you understood my positions -even if you do not agree with them."

I do understand you position, and I respect you efforts.

Bill

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Hey Bill - try 'george lofgren, taxidermy' at least it shows I wasn't making it up . In fairness I think AMM already sent me a link to that page my random Googling has just pulled up.

I think I only provided the link to this blog, noting that the July 16, 2007 entry titled "Mighty Joe Young" mentioned the rubberizing technique, but thanks for the shout-out. As I recall, JohnWS mentioned Lofgren and rubberized fur and I asked if the technique involved beetles, as I vaguely remembered hearing about a rubberizing process using them (at the time, I had forgotten where I had read about that; now I remember reading about it here). He confirmed that I was indeed thinking of Lofgren's work and I showed him the above link (when I tried to confirm for myself whether or not he was the "beetle guy").

Here's what I found recently (no notes on any patents, though):

His IMDB page claims he started working in films in 1949 (in "Mighty Joe Young," supposedly the first film to take advantage of his rubberizing process for stop-motion effects) and that his last film was "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" in 1958.

Page 133 of Roy P. Webber's The Dinosaur Films of Ray Harryhausen notes the process and his duties on "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad."

Page 115 of Dore Schary's Case History of a Movie has a brief note on the process.

Page 156 of Richard Rickitt's Special Effects: The History and Technique provides some details on the process, but doesn't mention beetles.

 

[Correa Neto]

A piece of evidence certainly can be interpreted in different ways....but not correctly interpreted in different ways.

Oh, yes, it can!
It all depends on what you are looking for. A single dataset can be used for two or more purposes, for example. Not to mention that in natural sciences, sometimes when you have two divergent positions, the "truth" lies somewhere between them; neither positions are entirely wrong or correct.

Not to mention that sometimes both are wrong.

How does one determine whether or not a piece of evidence is a "quality" piece of evidence? Does one look for the "Union Label"??

Basic QA/QC. As far as I know, data used to support the claim bigfeet are real would not pass basic QA/QC tests.

The datasets used to back the conclusion about planet formation at Sigma Herculis, for example, certainly passed through these tests. The datasets obtained from PGF, such as IM measurements, weight and size estimates, footprint casts, "realism" claims, etc. would fail those tests. Eyewitnesses reports would fail those tests. Despite all of this, bigfoot investigators still claim the evidence is good enough to build a solid case.

Please show us an example where the data supporting the reality of bigfeet passed these tests. If you are going to point towards Meldrum's and Glickman's works (and similar material), I must remind you in advance that I am far from being impressed.

 

[Astrophotographer]

In the case of Bigfoot...we can indeed have evidence for it's existence, without any Bigfeets actually existing..

Such evidence is often poor and subject to interpretation. Can it be verified? Can it be duplicated? Can people all agree how to interpret this evidence? If everyone can agree on how to interpret the evidence then it is good evidence. Otherwise you are placing your own subjective value on the quality of the evidence.

A piece of evidence certainly can be interpreted in different ways....but not correctly interpreted in different ways.
Just because people can evaluate evidence differently doesn't mean that there isn't a correct and an incorrect way to evaluate evidence.

If experts disagree on how to interpret the evidence then the evidence is obviously subjective in nature. Who decides on how to "correctly" interpret the evidence? You? The only way to correctly evaluate evidence is for people/experts to arrive at a consensus. For instance, where proponents see bigfoot tracks, others see fake prints or misinterpretation of the evidence. Is this good evidence? No, it isn't. Bigfoot tracks can be faked and can sometimes fool experts.

There is a scientific method to evaluating and weighing a piece of evidence...therefore, it's not a subjective matter...i.e, "in the eye of the beholder".

Yes there is a method and how you are evaluating the evidence is not scientific at all. Science requires the evidence to be presented and evaluated as to what it means. When a consensus is arrived at the quality and meaning of the evidence, it can help prove a fact. I see no consensus of opinion when it comes to the evidence you claim exists.

Exactly how do scientists interpret the evidence of bigfoot's existence? From what I have read and seen, they do not think it is compelling at all. If it were, there would be lots of scientists combing the northwest woods trying to prove bigfoot exists. Such a find would be monumental. Do you think that scientists would pass on such a chance if they thought there was a good possibility that bigfoot exists? Instead, we have a bunch of amateurs and a few experts snooping out in the woods with little to show for their efforts over the past forty years.

How does one determine whether or not a piece of evidence is a "quality" piece of evidence? Does one look for the "Union Label"??

This is where you reasoning keeps failing you. You see anything as evidence. For evidence to have quality it needs to be verifiable as authentic (not fabricated) and something that can be clearly evaluated. It can not be tainted by incorrect collection or analysis. Others have to be able analyze this evidence and confirm what the proponent has determined about the evidence. Good quality evidence will provide a consensus of opinion between experts. Bad quality will produce multiple opinions and interpretations.

In the case of PGF, I think most agree it is a film of something and not trick photography. What is in the film is the subject of debate. There is no agreement on what is filmed and there is the possibility it can be a man in a suit. Since nobody has shown that bigfoot really exists in nature, then this piece of evidence suggests it is probably a man in a suit. If somebody could provide good evidence that bigfoot actually exists (i.e. a body or something conclusive), then it would increase the probability that it is an actual bigfoot.

That's true....if individual pieces of evidence...like eyewitness accounts...carry no weight whatsoever, then a collection of similar weightless pieces of evidence would add up to nothing, also.
But that doesn't apply to all eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot, because some eyewitness accounts do carry weight. And collectively, their weights add up.

No, your reasoning is incorrect. How can one verify the story is true? What eyewitness accounts "do carry weight"? In the Demon Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote the following:

On so important a question, the evidence must be airtight. The more we want it to be true, the more careful we have to be. No witness’s say-so is good enough. People make mistakes. People play practical jokes. People stretch the truth for money or attention or fame. People occasionally misunderstand what they are seeing. People sometimes even see things that aren’t there.

In this case he was talking about UFOs but it can equally apply to claims of bigfoot sightings.

The evidence indicates only a probability that planets are forming...not proof that they are forming....hence the use of the word "may" in that statement.

The evidence indicates a degree of probability that planets are forming, when, in actual fact, they may not be.

All of this is based on actual measurements that are recorded and presented for other astronomers to evaluate. They can also turn their instrumentation towards the system to evaluate the evidence for "quality" by verifying the data and gathering more. The hypothesis does not prove anything but it offers the best answer based on the evidence gathered. In the case of bigfoot, the evidence can always be interpreted differently and without assuming the existence of a species nobody has ever proven to exist.

The purpose of these discussions is simply to try to determine the likelihood of it's existence, and the likelihood that Patty is either a man or a real Bigfoot.
That all revolves around analysing and weighing all the individual bits of evidence, one by one...because evidence indicates probabilities, and likelihood.

And not one iota of evidence is worth much. The evidence is all subjective. Even the PGF, which you cherish so greatly, is subjective in how you interpret the film. There is nothing physical to evaluate and agree upon. Since you admit you don't know if bigfoot exists, then your evidence is not very convincing even to you. it sounds like the probability you have arrived at must be low.

Bill Munns is doing exactly that...analysing the evidence, one step at a time.

And has not been able to prove anything other than he can not determine if it is bigfoot or a man in a suit! If he is trying to prove it is not a man in a suit, it is going to be very difficult. Don't look at his analysis as the "holy grail". The only way to positively prove it is not a man in a suit is to prove that what is in the film is a real bigfoot (or something other than a man in a suit).

If you, or anyone else, wants to hang around and just say "where's the proof...got a body?" , feel free to do so, but you are...in fact...aiming LOW.

Actually, I am setting the bar a bit higher than you apparently want it to be. It is you who are aiming low at what you accept as good evidence.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
That's true....if individual pieces of evidence...like eyewitness accounts...carry noweight whatsoever, then a collection of similar weightless pieces of evidence would add up to nothing, also.
But that doesn't apply to all eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot, because some eyewitness accounts do carry weight. And collectively, their weights add up.

No, your reasoning is incorrect. How can one verify the story is true? What eyewitness accounts "do carry weight"?

You're contradicting yourself, Astro.

In your earlier post, you agreed...

Yes I am aware that evidence does not have to rise to the level of proof to carry weight.

....and now you're asking "how can a sighting report be verified to be true? (proven.)
You asked this in relation to 'a sighting report carrying weight'.


The contradiction is....if you agree that sighting reports (one example of "evidence") can carry weight, without being proven to be real.....then why are you now asking how a sighting report can be proven, in order for it to carry weight???

Make-up your mind, Astro.....does a sighting report NEED to be proven to be legit, in order for it to 'carry weight'...or doesn't it?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
The evidence indicates only a probability that planets are forming...not proof that they are forming....hence the use of the word "may" in that statement.

The evidence indicates a degree of probability that planets are forming, when, in actual fact, they may not be.

All of this is based on actual measurements that are recorded and presented for other astronomers to evaluate. They can also turn their instrumentation towards the system to evaluate the evidence for "quality" by verifying the data and gathering more.
The hypothesis does not prove anything but it offers the best answer based on the evidence gathered. In the case of bigfoot, the evidence can always be interpreted differently and without assuming the existence of a species nobody has ever proven to exist

You're making the same false argument, or comparison, that others have made before, when I used a different analogy....a person arrested for a crime based on some piece of evidence pointing towards him, though not proving that he committed the crime.

You're saying that the evidence, "the data", in the case of the astronomers, can be "verified"...(proven)....but that is NOT what the subject of the evidence was.
You've switched the subject, from what it originally was.. " evidence that planet formation may have occured", to... "evidence that the data is correct."


Here's another line from that article...

...found that observations of outflowing gas (data) from around sigma Herculis suggest (that means "evidence of" ) the existence of a parent body reservoir that is sufficiently massive to form planets (one possible consequence of the data).

The subject of the evidence, in that article, is NOT the data itself ("observations of gas", which is verified, and known)....but one possible consequence of the data (which is NOT verified, known, or proven.)...which is "planets may have formed".

When I used the "crime analogy" before, skeptics switched the subject of the evidence from "he may have committed the crime" (the consequence of the data) to "he is KNOWN to be a real person" (the data itself).

It's exactly the same twisted argument...only with different specifics....and a different skeptic behind the wheel.

 

[kitakaze]

But that doesn't apply to all eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot, because some eyewitness accounts do carry weight. And collectively, their weights add up.

Reason done broke, gone fishin'.

Sweaty, do actually think nobody will notice?

 

[kitakaze]

The contradiction is....if you agree that sighting reports (one example of "evidence") can carry weight, without being proven to be real.....then why are you now asking how a sighting report can be proven, in order for it to carry weight???

Make-up your mind, Astro.....does a sighting report NEED to be proven to be legit, in order for it to 'carry weight'...or doesn't it?

You're reasoning fails you again. There's no contradiction. You only imagine one based on your ignorance.

Astro is trying to help you understand why sightings, whether alone or collectively, can not have siginificant weight as evidence for the reasons he already specified.

If that wasn't the case then ghosts, aliens, chupacabras, plesiosaurs, etc can all join bigfoot.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

The evidence is all subjective.
Even the PGF....is subjective in how you interpret the film.

Sorry, Astro...but 'analysing evidence' is a science...not an artform.
As much as you'd like it to be...it's not a subjective matter.

If two people look at the same piece of evidence, and analyse it completely differently...someone is RIGHT, and someone is WRONG.

It's as simple as that.

 

[kitakaze]

All of this is based on actual measurements that are recorded and presented for other astronomers to evaluate. They can also turn their instrumentation towards the system to evaluate the evidence for "quality" by verifying the data and gathering more. The hypothesis does not prove anything but it offers the best answer based on the evidence gathered. In the case of bigfoot, the evidence can always be interpreted differently and without assuming the existence of a species nobody has ever proven to exist.

You're making the same false argument, or comparison, that others have made before, when I used a different analogy....a person arrested for a crime based on some piece of evidence pointing towards him, though not proving that he committed the crime.

You're saying that the evidence, "the data", in the case of the astronomers, can be "verified"...(proven)....but that is NOT what the subject of the evidence was.
You've switched the subject, from what it originally was.. " evidence that planet formation may have occured", to... "evidence that the data is correct."

We can see here that Sweaty's so determined to try and score some points on Astro that he's not trying to properly read and comprehend what he is writing.

Let's just repeat the above bolded part of Astro's post so Sweaty can try and absorb it:

The hypothesis does not prove anything but it offers the best answer based on the evidence gathered. In the case of bigfoot, the evidence can always be interpreted differently and without assuming the existence of a species nobody has ever proven to exist.

When Astro spoke of verifying the data, he was speaking of other astronomers confirming measurements that were made.

Sweaty, you need to pay attention.