• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
But, in this NASA video, taken on the STS-48 Shuttle mission...there is definitely, beyond all doubt, something strange happening....

I guess you never read Oberg's take on this. I put more stock in what Oberg has to say on this matter than a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

http://www.debunker.com/texts/sts48_ufo.html

But this is about the PGF. Let's stick to that. If you want to talk about ice crystals, we can start another thread.
 
As for UFO's....I think there is evidence of something going on in the skies, that we don't have all the 'info' on.

But, in this NASA video, taken on the STS-48 Shuttle mission...there is definitely, beyond all doubt, something strange happening....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiDvkB_rG-Q


There's an object which comes into view at 1:31 into the video, coming across the physical edge of the Earth. (Not the top, visible edge, which is the atmosphere.) The physical edge of the earth is marked with a white 'registration marker'. It's located below the "STS" in the title.

The fact that the object is seen coming over the edge of the Earth, tells us it's a large object, far away from the Shuttle...rather than a small object, near the Shuttle. It gives us a 3rd dimension, and allows for speed measurements to be made of it.
The object is very real...and accelerates very fast, off into space, at a rate that would crush an astronaut...changing direction abruptly, in a way unlike any type of spacecraft that we know about.
In addition, it reactes to a flash of light from something on the shuttle....so the shuttle and the object are interacting with each other.
It's a safe bet that the shuttle mission involved more than just what NASA made public.

You may want to start a new thread on this one. This has been explained a million times. There is nothing I see at 1:31 or anywhere else that shows a large object coming over the edge of the earth. The video shows ice crystals moving when a directional rocket is fired. You can even see the flash of the rocket right before the object flies away.
 
I posted a lot more still frames, and animated gifs on the MD Video, over on the BFF, Astro.

When the MD video is watched at regular speed, on the LMS dvd, there is clearly a sudden, and distinct, rise in the subject's height....which is something being lifted-up onto the subject's head/shoulders.

Sorry but from what I have seen of this film, it is worse than the PGF. Looks like somebody running across a hill in a suit. How you can perform detailed analysis of a video where the image is so small, just amazes me. Again, I suggest you read what I wrote about what William Hyzer stated about image manipulation and processing by amateurs. I will post it again:

The power to alter images is a cause of great concern among forensic image examiners and by those who depend upon their images to convey impartial information regarding a scene or object...digital image processing, even in primitive form, is a highly manipulative process capable of changing an image into something it isn't in order to highlight certain features and/or subdue others at the personal discretion of the operator....Tampering with these images for the intended purpose of revealing things that are not visually apparent in them is an exercise that can easily lead an overzealous photo analyst out of reality and into the realm of pseudo-science.

You are seeing "faces in the clouds". It is subjective and I doubt you would get any professional photoanalyst to agree with your assessment.
 
...
appear to have a connection with
...

When I have more time on my hands, I plan to do an exegesis of the works of SweatyYeti. I think I've found another nugget.

When Sweaty writes "X appears to have connection with Y," what he really means to say is "X reminds me in a subjective and, perhaps, idiosyncratic way of Y."
 
As for UFO's....I think there is evidence of something going on in the skies, that we don't have all the 'info' on.

But, in this NASA video, taken on the STS-48 Shuttle mission...there is definitely, beyond all doubt, something strange happening....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiDvkB_rG-Q


There's an object which comes into view at 1:31 into the video, coming across the physical edge of the Earth. (Not the top, visible edge, which is the atmosphere.) The physical edge of the earth is marked with a white 'registration marker'. It's located below the "STS" in the title.

The fact that the object is seen coming over the edge of the Earth, tells us it's a large object, far away from the Shuttle...rather than a small object, near the Shuttle. It gives us a 3rd dimension, and allows for speed measurements to be made of it.
The object is very real...and accelerates very fast, off into space, at a rate that would crush an astronaut...changing direction abruptly, in a way unlike any type of spacecraft that we know about.
In addition, it reactes to a flash of light from something on the shuttle....so the shuttle and the object are interacting with each other.
It's a safe bet that the shuttle mission involved more than just what NASA made public.

I'll admit, that wasn't the response I was expecting. In the past I've seen many Bigfoot enthusiasts readily accept hearsay and blurry photographs of Bigfoot as "proof" while simultaneously rejecting the same sort of evidence for other things (UFOs in particular). Not much I can say at this point except congratulate you on your consistency.
 
The MDF has been so soundly debunked, it is no longer on the radar anywhere but in Sweaty;s mind...


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=19360

Unfortunately, Morgoth's work seems to have been yanked, but I'm sure we could dig it up if need be..

Noll was going to reveal some of his super secret stuff at a recent Bigfoot conference, but darn, there was some kind of equipment failure..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=19360&view=findpost&p=439430

Cameras and playback equipment don't seem to work when Bigfoot is in the area ..
 
I try to be very careful about that, and am vocal about how Bigfooters will distort his testimony. This one comes directly from Bob Heironimus.



Did you read this post that I made? When presented with a short gif that supposidly shows a moving mouth (lips), BH says that he doesn't recall movement there. If he knew the mouth was rigged to move he could have said "You should expect to see the mouth move." He doesn't. Instead he argues that the mouth did not move by design.




I've already read most of that. But you didn't really answer my questions. Is there a photo (or some documentation) that shows that Oliphant was standing next to a wig-wearing Bob Gimlin? Did Roger fly or drive to Hollywood?

William P -- I understand what you're saying. Bob H. actually says that if the mouth moved it might have been caused by his own jaw moving. He says he doesn't recall deliberately moving his jaw. He states that he just doesn't know. He did say that there seemed to be some sort of "mouthpiece" or something there. All of that is very consistent with the head that was used for Patty.

Unless the person putting the mask on your head tells you that he wants you to move your jaw because there is a special hinge in it you would have no way of knowing it even had one. Unless you spent time trying to go over it and look behind the inner layer and see if you can make it move or not. All Heironimus knows is that they stuck a head on him.

Here is a wider shot of what the inside of that type of mask with a moving jaw looked like.

When BUCK MAFFEI wore the head the jaw would move on its own when he tried to breath. You might notice this if you check out the new Blu Ray version of "Galileo Seven" that will be offered around the time the newest STAR TREK movie comes out. The face is seen when Buck slams a rock down onto the shuttle craft.

GREG LONG interviewed OLIPHANT and MASON about the New York event. MERRITT told Long he was ticked off because they didn't even tell him they were going and he thought he was a partner in the film making part of Roger's productions.

For his part DEATLEY says he spent a week and a half with Patterson and Gimlin in Los Angeles. He says he had to "structure up the deal". About New York he recalls buying a bunch of new clothes for both Patterson and Gimlin and he remembers Patterson going on the JOEY BISHOP SHOW to promote his adventures. Long specifically asks him about Gimlin being dressed up as an Indian at a New York party set up by Oliphant to attract investors. He says his usual line: "I can't recall. I can't say it didn't happen."

It might be possible that DeAtley's wife (Roger's sister) could have kept some photo or something from the New York event (if they took any). It seems that only one single possible investor showed up and the whole thing was a bust. After that Gimlin's wife put her foot down and he no longer showed up. It became the Patterson-DeAtley film show and they never bothered to inform Mason or Merritt of this.

In the spring of '69 FRANK HANSEN admitted to the ROCHESTER POST-BULLETIN that his Iceman was a model made in Hollywood. This put a real crimp in the profits of the Patterson-DeAtley film tour. DeAtley turned his 50% ownership over to Patterson and Patterson went forward with RON OLSON to make future films. DeAtley and Patterson had made what amounts to nearly a million dollars in today's money by that time.

Patterson hired some boys to go out with tape recorders and do interviews for him as he and Olson planned new ventures. But Patterson became too ill and Olson went forward on his own. Dahinden and Gimlin began their lawsuits after the 1975 Olson documentary (which Dahinden had participated in).

The court records may provide documentation that you seek about the contracts and other things. They never asked the question as to whether the film was real or not; only the question of who deserved profits from it.

I do have a copy of Patterson's original contract with VILMA RADFORD that provided the funds for the Patty suit. I can dig that up and post it if you want.

MASON says he spent his own money to edit a 29 minute version of documentary from the footage Roger gave him. DEATLEY says he gave Roger $3600 (*$23,000 in today's money) to pay a cameraman/editor to re-edit their footage with the BBC documentary footage and that became the film they toured with. DeAtley played the part of announcer in the movie and the office of his friend at the Junior College played the part of NORTHWEST RESEARCH HQ.

I think you'll find Long's book informative for the facts it contains. He makes his own opinions known as he goes along and he gets some minor things wrong, but the only serious error is when he added the quick last chapter when PHILLIP MORRIS called him. Morris is wrong about the suit being one of his. Long really did not bother looking much at the film itself so the book isn't about the footage. It's about the guy who made the film and the facts surrounding the film.

Perhaps we can add something of value to that last chapter.

Also, Roger drove to Hollywood often. He and Merritt visited various friends in the entertainment field including GENE VINCENT and ROSS HAGEN (who starred on DAKTARI the hit television show at the time and who worked with Patterson on his Bigfoot song they recorded in Hollywood).

DREW -- After talking to Vulich I agreed that the suit could have been cobbled together from spare parts very quickly. But what about the face?


When I dressed up that stunt dummy for Halloween I wasn't trying to make a Patty. Just a Bigfoot that wasn't bald (as that had become the norm since Harry and the Hendersons). CHRIS WALAS thought it was hilarious that I had glued together a Tor mask and Wookie lips to make it, but it made a decent Bigfoot. (*btw I noticed that Morris' attempt to recreate Patty simply used a simple Tor mask that was painted grey and had straight cut hair stuck to it. Even I didn't do that and I was just goofing around.)

But in order to make it more Patty-like it would need thicker lips with a philtrum (the little fold on human upper lips not found on apes) and the forehead should be thicker, etc. The main thing was that the nose was too small. Patty's nose was much wider and had a golf-ball looking round tip. I'd never seen a single mask that had all of those qualities. So I went looking....

I tried various DON POST mask combos and found some that would work but it would take some artistic skills to pull off. Patterson had artistic skills and could have done it - yet since the suit showed the techniques that were used in '66-'67 by Wah and his crew I decided to look at their masks too. If the body came from among his people then the mask would have too.

I learned that one mask did have that golf ballish nose and a philtrum. It was molded by Wah Chang himself for an episode of Star Trek. It also had the thicker lips that curved the same way Patty's did.


I looked for behind-the-scenes photos of it and compared it to Patty. The story involved a planet with primitive giant cavemen who left huge footprints and wore animal skins. They used a wig that was like a pointed cap that fit over the slanted head of the caveman.


By this time I had already made a wider nose and glued that on top of my Tor mask and I'd filled out the jaw using a rubber piece. I glued some bits of foam to the forehead and painted over that with latex. Still... the upper lip was too short and the lips too thin to match Patty.


I contacted a Star Trek collector and he got some behind-the-scenes pics for me from one of the original Star Trek producers. Though none had the mask in the exact position of our clearest Patty image, what I saw confirmed what I had discovered. The sharp cheek matched. The wider golfball nose was there. The lips were the same. The philtrum was there. The measurements were the same. The jawline was there. The forehead and ear also matched.


I obtained even clearer and closer images (as well as images of Wah's original clay sculpture for the face) and I could see something else interesting. A problem with the eyes. Heironimus had said there was a problem when he turned his head. A gap showed. Roger used one of Bob H's fake eyes to hide this. You can see from this close shot that Wah had stuck an extra layer close to the face and painted it black hoping to hide the gap that had developed. Later on a simple touch up would blend the area around the eyes better but there was no time on the day of the Trek shoot to do that.

In that black and white image of my own mask next to Patty I have also used a fake eye in the Right eyehole. The Wah mask is being worn by the gigantic BUCK MAFFEI from CORRIGANVILLE. He worked with Wah, Chambers and Janos on projects as well.


If you look at the wide nostrils of Patty you'll see they match. When I made my stunt dummy into a Bigfoot I simply took the mask out of the hoodie that came with the Wookie hair suit and put it over the head of my Tor mask. Only later (quite by accident) did I notice that when I laid the typical hood that comes with all ape suits onto my Tor mask I got a little line around the skull.

I could shift the hood around on the head and found that I could duplicate the same line around the head that Patty shows by rolling it under and sticking it down. Then I noticed that the wig cap used by Wah on Star Trek for his mask fit on its head in the same way.

If anyone cleaned up the Wah head and painted it gray, then added glued-on hair and a hair hood - it would be Patty. Period. No way around it. Amazingly, this same group of creature fx artists that are credited with having made Patty for Roger used the techniques found in both Patty and their various monster suits. For them to have access to this head AND also just happen to build monster suits using the same pad and hair methods as seen on Patty is just too much coincidence.

Yes. The "Hollywood Rumor Mill" is correct. It was Chambers and the guys working with him that cobbled this thing together from spare creature suit parts. Just as they were doing on LOST IN SPACE/VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA and STAR TREK at the time. And just as Vulich and the guys did sometimes to save time on BUFFY.

Chambers and Janos told the story they were supposed to say in public. Chambers said the same thing about having worked for the CIA on secret missions, "Gosh, I only wish I were that good, but no, I had nothing to do with any of that stuff."

Near the end of his life the CIA gave an award to John Chambers for his work on secret missions for them that stemmed from the Bay of Pigs to later Middle East missions. Actually, he was that good.:eek:
 
Last edited:
I'll admit, that wasn't the response I was expecting. In the past I've seen many Bigfoot enthusiasts readily accept hearsay and blurry photographs of Bigfoot as "proof" while simultaneously rejecting the same sort of evidence for other things (UFOs in particular). Not much I can say at this point except congratulate you on your consistency.


Thanks, Hitch. :)

What can I say...I'm an open-minded person!


One way that I look at the possibility of alien life visiting the Earth, is that we know for a fact that suns, and solar systems, are in completely different stages of development...from 'just forming' to 'already gone'......and the lifetime of a sun is in the millions, or billions of years.
Hence, if intelligent life has ever developed on another planet somewhere, it's in all probability either way behind us, or way ahead of us, in it's stage of development. Just look at how much our level of technology has increased over the last 100 years, and think about how much more advanced another civilization would be that began 10,000, 100,000, or even a million years before us. :jaw-dropp

Who am I to say..."they can't be here"?

In the same way, with all the vast wilderness out there...to the tune of many millions of acres...who am I to say there's a 0% chance...(as Greg has said...see my signature line)...that an unproven, unclassified primate lives somewhere within all that land area?

I don't have the crystal ball that all you skeptics have, to see through all those trees....I have to give the sighting reports some weight!
 
The MDF has been so soundly debunked, it is no longer on the radar anywhere but in Sweaty;s mind...


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=19360

Unfortunately, Morgoth's work seems to have been yanked, but I'm sure we could dig it up if need be..

Noll was going to reveal some of his super secret stuff at a recent Bigfoot conference, but darn, there was some kind of equipment failure..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=19360&view=findpost&p=439430

Cameras and playback equipment don't seem to work when Bigfoot is in the area ..


Thanks for providing that link, Greg! :)
I noticed a couple of interesting statements by Morgoth, and you.

First, Morgoth...the debunker...;)....

I'm just looking at the pictures. You can actually see the white inside latex area of the mask as it comes down. Watch the right arm go up...

(Morgoth got good eyes :eye-poppi )

....and from Greg....

"Another perception that can be made with this clip, is that the subject is turned to the left and bent over...."

(Greg got good eyes, too. :D )


And.....from Mad Hom..earlier:

Geez Louise....there is absolutely, positively NOTHING in any of those frames that could be construde as anything but inconclusive blobbistics by anyone but a dyed in the wool rank-n-file....Bigfoot Fan.


Okay, boys...:D..at the count of three....come out fighting....and let's see who's right!


Edited to add:

Dear Mad Hom...
It's NOT just "Bigfoot Fans" who can see things in the MD Video. As a matter of fact...it's the skeptics who have "seen" the finer detail in the "blobbistics". Just thought you should know.
 
Last edited:
Well the MDF is a less than effective case for anything except speculation. Interesting that the human runner that they timed against the MDF figure smoked the MDF figure by a wide margin. The idea that there was a smaller, read infant or young Sasquatch accompaning the MFD figure makes no sense in that the infant would have needed to be running with the MDF figure until the MDF seems to pick it up and put it on its shoulder. Unless the person who captured the MDF on video was wearing a red plaid shirt it may as well be OJ running to score some blow.
 
William P -- I understand what you're saying. Bob H. actually says that if the mouth moved it might have been caused by his own jaw moving. He says he doesn't recall deliberately moving his jaw. He states that he just doesn't know. He did say that there seemed to be some sort of "mouthpiece" or something there. All of that is very consistent with the head that was used for Patty.

Unless the person putting the mask on your head tells you that he wants you to move your jaw because there is a special hinge in it you would have no way of knowing it even had one. Unless you spent time trying to go over it and look behind the inner layer and see if you can make it move or not. All Heironimus knows is that they stuck a head on him.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_776647e93a2c73d1e.jpg[/qimg]
Here is a wider shot of what the inside of that type of mask with a moving jaw looked like.

When BUCK MAFFEI wore the head the jaw would move on its own when he tried to breath. You might notice this if you check out the new Blu Ray version of "Galileo Seven" that will be offered around the time the newest STAR TREK movie comes out. The face is seen when Buck slams a rock down onto the shuttle craft.

GREG LONG interviewed OLIPHANT and MASON about the New York event. MERRITT told Long he was ticked off because they didn't even tell him they were going and he thought he was a partner in the film making part of Roger's productions.

For his part DEATLEY says he spent a week and a half with Patterson and Gimlin in Los Angeles. He says he had to "structure up the deal". About New York he recalls buying a bunch of new clothes for both Patterson and Gimlin and he remembers Patterson going on the JOEY BISHOP SHOW to promote his adventures. Long specifically asks him about Gimlin being dressed up as an Indian at a New York party set up by Oliphant to attract investors. He says his usual line: "I can't recall. I can't say it didn't happen."

It might be possible that DeAtley's wife (Roger's sister) could have kept some photo or something from the New York event (if they took any). It seems that only one single possible investor showed up and the whole thing was a bust. After that Gimlin's wife put her foot down and he no longer showed up. It became the Patterson-DeAtley film show and they never bothered to inform Mason or Merritt of this.

In the spring of '69 FRANK HANSEN admitted to the ROCHESTER POST-BULLETIN that his Iceman was a model made in Hollywood. This put a real crimp in the profits of the Patterson-DeAtley film tour. DeAtley turned his 50% ownership over to Patterson and Patterson went forward with RON OLSON to make future films. DeAtley and Patterson had made what amounts to nearly a million dollars in today's money by that time.

Patterson hired some boys to go out with tape recorders and do interviews for him as he and Olson planned new ventures. But Patterson became too ill and Olson went forward on his own. Dahinden and Gimlin began their lawsuits after the 1975 Olson documentary (which Dahinden had participated in).

The court records may provide documentation that you seek about the contracts and other things. They never asked the question as to whether the film was real or not; only the question of who deserved profits from it.

I do have a copy of Patterson's original contract with VILMA RADFORD that provided the funds for the Patty suit. I can dig that up and post it if you want.

MASON says he spent his own money to edit a 29 minute version of documentary from the footage Roger gave him. DEATLEY says he gave Roger $3600 (*$23,000 in today's money) to pay a cameraman/editor to re-edit their footage with the BBC documentary footage and that became the film they toured with. DeAtley played the part of announcer in the movie and the office of his friend at the Junior College played the part of NORTHWEST RESEARCH HQ.

I think you'll find Long's book informative for the facts it contains. He makes his own opinions known as he goes along and he gets some minor things wrong, but the only serious error is when he added the quick last chapter when PHILLIP MORRIS called him. Morris is wrong about the suit being one of his. Long really did not bother looking much at the film itself so the book isn't about the footage. It's about the guy who made the film and the facts surrounding the film.

Perhaps we can add something of value to that last chapter.

Also, Roger drove to Hollywood often. He and Merritt visited various friends in the entertainment field including GENE VINCENT and ROSS HAGEN (who starred on DAKTARI the hit television show at the time and who worked with Patterson on his Bigfoot song they recorded in Hollywood).

DREW -- After talking to Vulich I agreed that the suit could have been cobbled together from spare parts very quickly. But what about the face?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/776647e93c0b46d13.jpg[/qimg]
When I dressed up that stunt dummy for Halloween I wasn't trying to make a Patty. Just a Bigfoot that wasn't bald (as that had become the norm since Harry and the Hendersons). CHRIS WALAS thought it was hilarious that I had glued together a Tor mask and Wookie lips to make it, but it made a decent Bigfoot. (*btw I noticed that Morris' attempt to recreate Patty simply used a simple Tor mask that was painted grey and had straight cut hair stuck to it. Even I didn't do that and I was just goofing around.)

But in order to make it more Patty-like it would need thicker lips with a philtrum (the little fold on human upper lips not found on apes) and the forehead should be thicker, etc. The main thing was that the nose was too small. Patty's nose was much wider and had a golf-ball looking round tip. I'd never seen a single mask that had all of those qualities. So I went looking....

I tried various DON POST mask combos and found some that would work but it would take some artistic skills to pull off. Patterson had artistic skills and could have done it - yet since the suit showed the techniques that were used in '66-'67 by Wah and his crew I decided to look at their masks too. If the body came from among his people then the mask would have too.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/776647e93e77cd1e8.jpg[/qimg] I learned that one mask did have that golf ballish nose and a philtrum. It was molded by Wah Chang himself for an episode of Star Trek. It also had the thicker lips that curved the same way Patty's did.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_776647e93ee1c6d98.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/776647e94d9011dab.jpg[/qimg]
I looked for behind-the-scenes photos of it and compared it to Patty. The story involved a planet with primitive giant cavemen who left huge footprints and wore animal skins. They used a wig that was like a pointed cap that fit over the slanted head of the caveman.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/776647c73637d7b4b.jpg[/qimg]
By this time I had already made a wider nose and glued that on top of my Tor mask and I'd filled out the jaw using a rubber piece. I glued some bits of foam to the forehead and painted over that with latex. Still... the upper lip was too short and the lips too thin to match Patty.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/776647e94100df447.jpg[/qimg]
I contacted a Star Trek collector and he got some behind-the-scenes pics for me from one of the original Star Trek producers. Though none had the mask in the exact position of our clearest Patty image, what I saw confirmed what I had discovered. The sharp cheek matched. The wider golfball nose was there. The lips were the same. The philtrum was there. The measurements were the same. The jawline was there. The forehead and ear also matched.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_776647e9479913366.jpg[/qimg]
I obtained even clearer and closer images (as well as images of Wah's original clay sculpture for the face) and I could see something else interesting. A problem with the eyes. Heironimus had said there was a problem when he turned his head. A gap showed. Roger used one of Bob H's fake eyes to hide this. You can see from this close shot that Wah had stuck an extra layer close to the face and painted it black hoping to hide the gap that had developed. Later on a simple touch up would blend the area around the eyes better but there was no time on the day of the Trek shoot to do that.

In that black and white image of my own mask next to Patty I have also used a fake eye in the Right eyehole. The Wah mask is being worn by the gigantic BUCK MAFFEI from CORRIGANVILLE. He worked with Wah, Chambers and Janos on projects as well.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/776647e944c88ec4b.jpg[/qimg]
If you look at the wide nostrils of Patty you'll see they match. When I made my stunt dummy into a Bigfoot I simply took the mask out of the hoodie that came with the Wookie hair suit and put it over the head of my Tor mask. Only later (quite by accident) did I notice that when I laid the typical hood that comes with all ape suits onto my Tor mask I got a little line around the skull.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7766478e6561bed41.jpg[/qimg]
I could shift the hood around on the head and found that I could duplicate the same line around the head that Patty shows by rolling it under and sticking it down. Then I noticed that the wig cap used by Wah on Star Trek for his mask fit on its head in the same way.

If anyone cleaned up the Wah head and painted it gray, then added glued-on hair and a hair hood - it would be Patty. Period. No way around it. Amazingly, this same group of creature fx artists that are credited with having made Patty for Roger used the techniques found in both Patty and their various monster suits. For them to have access to this head AND also just happen to build monster suits using the same pad and hair methods as seen on Patty is just too much coincidence.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_776647e94765c9723.gif[/qimg] Yes. The "Hollywood Rumor Mill" is correct. It was Chambers and the guys working with him that cobbled this thing together from spare creature suit parts. Just as they were doing on LOST IN SPACE/VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA and STAR TREK at the time. And just as Vulich and the guys did sometimes to save time on BUFFY.

Chambers and Janos told the story they were supposed to say in public. Chambers said the same thing about having worked for the CIA on secret missions, "Gosh, I only wish I were that good, but no, I had nothing to do with any of that stuff."

Near the end of his life the CIA gave an award to John Chambers for his work on secret missions for them that stemmed from the Bay of Pigs to later Middle East missions. Actually, he was that good.:eek:

Man the Bay of Pigs was a disaster and virtually everything we've done in the Middle East has benn one too. Why though was Chambers not allowed to say he made the Patty suit a decade or two later say in the late 80's?
 
I learned that one mask did have that golf ballish nose and a philtrum. It was molded by Wah Chang himself for an episode of Star Trek. It also had the thicker lips that curved the same way Patty's did.

Whoa! Great job. Yeah, the guys from Galileo Seven are a damn good face-match for Patty. And I remember noticing that suit-telltale inverted V shape at the top of the thigh very clearly in one of the 'steady' gifs buried earlier in the thread. IIRC I mentioned it and someone replied that was evidence of muscle groups.. XD
 
I have to give the sighting reports some weight!

Eyewitness testimony is fine if you want to talk about a car crash or murder. It is another thing when it comes to things like ghosts, ESP, fairies, UFOs, alien abductions, and, yes, bigfoot. Just a few quotes I have collected over the years concerning scientists/respected individuals and their opinions of eyewitness testimony concerning exotic claims.

No anecdotal claim - no matter how sincere, no matter how deeply felt, no matter how exemplary the lives of the attesting citizens - carries much weight on so important a question. Dr. Carl Sagan

...we humans do not immediately perceive the world as it is; rather, we are elaborate computers with an enormous preset routine and much programming, both genetic and cultural; and we have to interpret all the data we get. That interpretation, whatever it is, is subject to error....I would say that NO witness is credible who bears a sufficiently strange story...All of us know how people have been mistaken with the best will in the world Dr. Philip Morrison

...even if in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is a high form of evidence, in the court of science, it is the lowest form of evidence you could possibly put forth Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson

...witnesses were usually right when they said that something had happened at a particular place, although they could wildly be wrong about what had happened. R. V. Jones

Trust a witness in all matters in which neither his self-interest, his passions, his prejudices, not the love of the marvelous is strongly concerned. When they are involved, require corroborative evidence in exact proportion to the contravention of probability by the thing testified. Thomas Huxley

"The blind desire to believe can and does lead a person into absolute absurdities...Our desires and illusions continue to determine what we see in the world around us--and what we believe of the testimony of witnesses" Dr. Roy Craig
 
Last edited:
Awareness Test

...witnesses were usually right when they said that something had happened at a particular place, although they could wildly be wrong about what had happened. R. V. Jones

Just to add an example to this point, watch this video and follow the instructions, if you haven't already seen this its a great illustration of AP's point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSQJP40PcGI

Rick
 
Just to add an example to this point, watch this video and follow the instructions, if you haven't already seen this its a great illustration of AP's point.

I can't believe I missed the obvious item! I had to play it back to make sure it was in the original clip. Wonderful example IMHO.
 
Eyewitness testimony is fine if you want to talk about a car crash or murder. It is another thing when it comes to things like ghosts, ESP, fairies, UFOs, alien abductions, and, yes, bigfoot. Just a few quotes I have collected over the years concerning scientists/respected individuals and their opinions of eyewitness testimony concerning exotic claims.

No anecdotal claim - no matter how sincere, no matter how deeply felt, no matter how exemplary the lives of the attesting citizens - carries much weight on so important a question. Dr. Carl Sagan

...we humans do not immediately perceive the world as it is; rather, we are elaborate computers with an enormous preset routine and much programming, both genetic and cultural; and we have to interpret all the data we get. That interpretation, whatever it is, is subject to error....I would say that NO witness is credible who bears a sufficiently strange story...All of us know how people have been mistaken with the best will in the world Dr. Philip Morrison

...even if in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is a high form of evidence, in the court of science, it is the lowest form of evidence you could possibly put forth Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson

...witnesses were usually right when they said that something had happened at a particular place, although they could wildly be wrong about what had happened. R. V. Jones

Trust a witness in all matters in which neither his self-interest, his passions, his prejudices, not the love of the marvelous is strongly concerned. When they are involved, require corroborative evidence in exact proportion to the contravention of probability by the thing testified. Thomas Huxley

"The blind desire to believe can and does lead a person into absolute absurdities...Our desires and illusions continue to determine what we see in the world around us--and what we believe of the testimony of witnesses" Dr. Roy Craig


There is a basic principle which applies to how much weight an eyewitness testimony carries.

Here is an explanation, from this article...

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html

First, it is important to understand that the strength of a conclusion is a function both of the quality of the evidence provided in its support and the a priori probability of the claim being supported.

Thus there can never be a single standard of "acceptable evidence" that will suffice to render every claim equally plausible.

Suppose, for example, that a reasonably reliable source tells me (a) that President Clinton has vetoed legislation that places restrictions on trade with China and (b) that Newt Gingrich has switched to the Democratic party. Most people would be much more confident (put weight in) of the truth of the first report than of the second, even though the source is identical.

The difference lies in the a priori plausibility of the claims.


The weight that a person's eyewitness testimony holds is directly related to how plausible the claim is....before (a priori )the claim is investigated. Or....how plausible, or outrageous the claim is, using simple common knowledge and common sense.

For example....if someone says they saw a T-Rex walking through the woods, then their testimony holds NO weight, because we know, before (a priori) investigating the matter, that that is an impossibility.

If that same person says they saw someone steal a car, their testimony can hold a good deal of weight, because we know...a priori...that claim is a very plausible one.

The tricky thing to figure out....and agree on....is the "a priori plausibility" of claims which are in-between those two extreme examples.

Like, the "a priori plausibility" of "Bigfoot's existence". :)

Is it really so "outlandish" a thing, to think....before investigating...that such a creature could exist, somewhere on this planet?
It certainly is more outlandish to think that it could live in a suburb of Chicago, than out in the wilderness of the Pacific Northwest.

It's an important part of 'weighing' a person's testimony, because the extent to which it's either plausible, or implausible, is a major determining factor in applying a certain weight to someone's claim to have seen a Bigfoot.

We know that upright-walking primates do exist...;)...and we know that Giganto did exist, and it fits the basic description of Bigfoot, with the possible exception (and the only one, btw.) of the 'upright posture'.

I, personally, don't see any reason why Bigfoot's existence should be considered an "outrageous", or "highly implausible" claim...in certain parts of N. America.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom