Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[SweatyYeti]

Edit: Double-post.

 

[kitakaze]

Before I give a full response I'm sure I don't need to point out that I and many others consider the PGF an obvious suit. I believe you have a rather lengthy post forthcoming related to that.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Skeptics on this board have admitted that Patty is possibly a real Bigfoot.

That means.....NOT obviously, without a doubt, a man-in-a-suit.

 

[Astrophotographer]

As a result...we can confidently state that there is indeed a difference between the realism of Patty, and all the rest.

So we can all agree to this? I don't think so. First of all, most of those photographs are clear and high resolution. You are comparing it to a film where the image size of Patty is not that significant (I believe it is between 1 and 2mm high on a 10X7.5mm high frame). Additionally, you are working from at least one copy of the original film, which causes a loss of data. How small a feature can one resolve on a film of this magnitude and how reliably can it be measured?
Additionally, exactly how do you quantify "realism"? If you are going to weigh the evidence of the PGF, I suggest you come up with some values and not some ambiguous and highly subjective value as "realism".

 

[kitakaze]

(snip) As a result...we can confidently state that there is indeed a difference between the realism of Patty, and all the rest.

Oh carp. Sweaty before I take this post of yours down to Chinatown, please tell me this isn't supposed to be the forthcoming lengthy post on realism. That seriously wasn't it, right? Just checking.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Skeptics on this board have admitted that Patty is possibly a real Bigfoot.

That means.....NOT obviously, without a doubt, a man-in-a-suit.

Your argument is weak and misrepresents the skeptical position. Skeptics leave the possibility open since nobody has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is a man in a suit (thereby establishing it as a fact). Weighing the probabilities, it is most likely a man in a suit and very unlikely to be bigfoot.

 

[kitakaze]

Skeptics on this board have admitted that Patty is possibly a real Bigfoot.

That means.....NOT obviously, without a doubt, a man-in-a-suit.

This is fun! It's turn #4392 on the NASCAR track of semantics. If any skeptic were to say that Patty is not possibly a real bigfoot, you'd have a coniption. Yes, I and others consider things such as the wacky boobs and diaper butt to be signs of an obvious hoax. I have not ruled out the possibility that this bizarreness could be a real animal but the possibility is extremely low. Reliable evidence that would support the idea of Patty being a real bigfoot would have to be forthcoming to change that determination.

You know that but hey, what've you got if not turn #4392.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Yes, I and others consider things such as the wacky boobs and diaper butt to be signs of an obvious hoax.

I have not ruled out the possibility that this bizarreness could be a real animal...

Oh, I see....you don't know for sure that Patty is a man-in-a-suit....and yet, at the same time, you say that the film is an obvious hoax.

I get it!

...please tell me this isn't supposed to be the forthcoming lengthy post on realism. That seriously wasn't it, right? Just checking.

No, it wasnt...it was just a response to your misrepresentation of my posts, comparing Patty with the BBC subject.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Your argument is weak and misrepresents the skeptical position.

Skeptics leave the possiblity open since nobody has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is a man in a suit (thereby establishing it as a fact). Weighing the probabilities, it is most likely a man in a suit and very unlikely to be bigfoot.

Actually, Astro....skeptics AND proponents (people in general)...leave that possibility open...because, as you stated, Patty hasn't been proven to be a human-in-a-suit.

But that is the big difference, Astro......Patty requires proof...while the others don't.

And that's because of a crazy little thing called "realism"...

 

[Drewbot]

Sweaty, unfortunately, there is no verifiable evidence of Bigfoot's existence therefore, I can only recommend, to you, the great Alexandre Dumas book, in which the title character leaves with the following...

`Wait and hope.' Your friend,

"Edmond Dantes, Count of Monte Cristo."

 

[Astrophotographer]

But that is the big difference, Astro......Patty requires proof...while the others don't.

Proof that is sorely lacking. All the evidence presented is subjective and the PGF is just another item in the long line of weak evidence that adds up to nothing or very little in proving bigfoot exists. As for the man in the suit, men exist and so do ape suits. Therefore, it is most likely a man in a suit until proven otherwise. The ball is in the bigfoot is real proponents court. Unfortunately, they can not find the ball and/or don't know how to hit it.

And that's because of a crazy little thing called "realism"...

Which you can not apparently quantify. It is your very biased and subjective opinion that it looks real. Sorry, but a lot of people have looked at the PGF and felt it was a man in a suit. If it really looked so "real", people would not have that opinion. Therefore, your "realism" standard must be very low.

 

[Aepervius]

Livescience on Monsters

Click on the number "1". Although i don't think the photo is from the pgf, the relevant quote should be read SLOWLY 3 or 4 times by sweaty (and others thinking this is not a costume).

The film has never been proven authentic, and many suspect a hoax. It is also odd that the film remains the best evidence for Bigfoot 40 years later, despite the fact that video cameras are better, cheaper, and in more hands than ever before; surely if it was not a hoax someone would have recorded a film as good or better since then. Perhaps Bigfoot's most amazing quality is its ability to leave no hard evidence of its existence. No teeth, bones, live or dead ones have been found. By one estimate, there should be hundreds of thousands of Bigfoot in North America, yet not one of them has been hit by a car, shot by a hunter, or found dead by a hiker.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

Therefore, it is most likely a man in a suit until proven otherwise.

Gee, according to LTC, the correct default position is "Patty is a man in a suit, until proven otherwise".

(But, oddly, when I asked LTC if that meant that "Patty is definitely a man-in-a-suit, he said...."Not exactly". )


So....to re-cap the skeptic's opinions on Patty:

Kitty says it's "an obvious hoax", and "it may not be a hoax"...

Astrophotographer says...."it's most-likely a hoax...

And LTC says....."it is a hoax, though not exactly definitely."

It's strange...skeptics seem to be all over the place with this so-called "obvious suit". Maybe that's because it's not-so-obvious just what Patty truly is.


Anyone else have any other dual-positions they'd like to take regarding this "obvious hoax"?

 

[RayG]

Click on the number "1". Although i don't think the photo is from the pgf, the relevant quote should be read SLOWLY 3 or 4 times by sweaty (and others thinking this is not a costume).

Surely they don't believe that still is from the PGF? If so, it clearly demonstrates their lack of investigative skills.

RayG

 

[GT/CS]

Skeptics on this board have admitted that Patty is possibly a real Bigfoot.

That means.....NOT obviously, without a doubt, a man-in-a-suit.

Here you go Sweaty.

Patty is obviously, without a doubt, positively, a bloke in a suit.

BTW, what did you do to make the people at Bigfoot Discussions so angry with you?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Here you go Sweaty.

Patty is obviously, without a doubt, positively, a bloke in a suit.

Sadly, GT...other hard-core skeptics on this board don't really think that's the case.

BTW, what did you do to make the people at Bigfoot Discussions so angry with you?

Beats me....I posted some stills from the MD Video, and they yanked them right off the board. They must be a little whacked, I guess!
You could ask Blackdog...I'm sure he can tell you.

 

[RayG]

BTW, what did you do to make the people at Bigfoot Discussions so angry with you?

Whatever do you mean?

RayG

 

[Astrophotographer]

Anyone else have any other dual-positions they'd like to take regarding this "obvious hoax"?

Gee....didn't we go round about on all this before where you were talking about probabilities and such. I don't recall ever calling it an obvious hoax but I could be wrong. However, I do fall into the category that it looks like a hoax and probably is a hoax. That being said, there is always the outside possibility that bigfoot may exist but still not proven. This is the position most objective individuals will logically take. I can contrast this to those who claim it is bigfoot until shown otherwise or it looks too real to be a hoax. In both cases, it assumes that bigfoot is a real creature and in this film even though nobody has ever shown such a creature to exist in the present time period. That assumption requires a leap of faith and not an objective position at all.

Your claim of "dual positions" is just a way for you to avoid the discussion about the evidence and your subjective and biased evaluation of the evidence. BTW, getting back to the evidence (PGF) that you carefully evaluated and weighed, how did you quantify realism?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astrophotographer wrote:

Gee....didn't we go round about on all this before where you were talking about probabilities and such. I don't recall ever calling it an obvious hoax but I could be wrong. However, I do fall into the category that it looks like a hoax and probably is a hoax.

I realize that the statements you've made don't qualify as "dual positions" on what Patty is, Astro.
But, you have said that the weight of the evidence for Bigfoot is "barely measureable"...and that evidence includes the PG film. Giving the PG film only a microscopic weight, as evidence for Bigfoot, is not far from calling it an obvious hoax.

I included your statement in my re-cap simply because you gave Patty at least some "degree of probability" (though a very low one) of being the real thing.

That being said, there is always the outside possibility that bigfoot may exist but still not proven. This is the position most objective individuals will logically take.

That's a reasonable statement.

I can contrast this to those who claim it (Patty) is a bigfoot until shown otherwise or it looks too real to be a hoax. In both cases, it assumes that bigfoot is a real creature and in this film even though nobody has ever shown such a creature to exist in the present time period.
That assumption requires a leap of faith and not an objective position at all.

I agree with what you said, Astro...as far as someone taking a default position of "Patty is a Bigfoot, until proven otherwise". It has yet to be proven anything, either way.

Because of Patty's degree of realism...and resulting ambiguity...the only position, default or otherwise, which is appropriate is simply..."Patty may be either a man or a real Bigfoot".

 

[kitakaze]

My point is....simply...it's a 'guy-in-a-suit'...and it's an obvious guy-in-a-suit, at that.

It literally screams "dude-in-a-suit"....as do these others...

Answer me this, Sweaty. Of all of these images you have posted in the quoted post, other than Patty, which ones were presented under the pretense that they were in fact a living bigfoot? I see only the Marx image. Was that image ever thought to be genuine by any bigfoot researcher at the time?