Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

No good hoaxes because its not worth the effort to make a good hoax implys that it does then take time, money and effort to make a great or even good hoax. If great hoaxes could be cranked out we'd have guys like Butchie The Kid from Youtube making good hoaxes instead of the dribble he does.

In this day and age when a person's 15 minutes of fame can be a lucrative 15 minutes a great hoax could reward the hoaxer better than Patterson manged. There's always a market anything can be marketed if youknow how to market it.

Nowadays it would be tough to get a good return on investment for a filmed Bigfoot hoax even if it was a great production. Almost anything can be pirated now and shows up on the web for free viewing.

It was a different scenario for Patterson. Nearly everyone had to pay money before they could see Patty on film. Nobody had VCRs or video cameras that they could sneak to film the film. The PGF was marketed in a way that essentially forced payment before a layperson could even decide for themselves what they were seeing. Add the media hype and the "first film of Bigfoot" kickers and you can begin to understand how the PGF made money like no modern equivalent could.

It wouldn't be a smart business move to set out to "replicate" or "better" the PGF with cash profits in mind. Monster Quest/White Wolf LMS may represent the only meaningful revenue stream for Bigfoot modern hype. But Hajicek doesn't do BF costumes other than the one Matt Crowley wears as a short demo. It wasn't an attempted hoax nor determined effort to fool anyone.

 

[Correa Neto]

I cannot qualify or quantify my 2 experiences and after thousands of times reviewing them in my mind- the most probable solution if a Bigfoot ( still,I never got a positive ID). That said, thats fine for "me" personally but I know that theres no way possible for me to go further than that. When I put on my professional garment- I have to state what the facts and data show and subject every piece of evidence to the acid test of science. So far, nothing has survived.

You are pretty aware of the weakness of your position and how far you can go. It’s a honest position and I understand how frustrating it can be. One of the keys here is "how far one can go". How far can one go with the available data? Since the evidences are very weak, most of the presented ideas lack solid foundations - even if some ideas happen to be logically consistent.
As a side note, you probably are aware that there are at least two (skeptical) members here who had experiences which could have been attributed to bigfeet -they just do not think bigfeet are the best answer.

Please dont call my hand because there are fanatics in every field but I try to exercise professional restraint with those who are really putting forth the legitimate effort. ( which is most of them) They are worthy of respect.

I do think that many are good people; unfortunately, most of those who came here to debate seem to have issues when some issues are questioned. I bet you already experienced some very negative reactions when you questioned some of them. And since here we question everything...
The best way to respect those who are worthy of respect is to show them how data should be properly handled.

 

[Aepervius]

Kudos to Bill for making his website more cut and paste friendly!

http://www.billmunnscreaturegallery.com/bmcgsite_068.htm

Drew I think you full copy & paste is beyond the rules on copyright infrigement and quoting, isn't it ? The link alone would be ok.

 

[Óðinn]

Oh Boy, a challenge- I like them

>>>Just addressing some misinformation...

No, thats what I'm doing now to your post

>>>How do you know the range is a few inches?

DECADES of actually doing it, along with training and accreditation/certification to accepted Global Standards- your pedigree is

Decades of measuring photos? I doubt it. My pedigree is in astrophysics and geomatics. I know how to rectify a photo. Most of my work these days involves developing GIS applications similar to Google Earth. Rendering oblique views of objects on the earth's surface using ortho photographic methods should apply to this discussion.

>>>The objects are 3D that have been projected onto a 2D surface. No different than the back of your retina.

Not how it works

Yes it does. The retina is akin to the film, being at the focal point of the lens.

>>>Huh? A 2D pic hasn't been flattened or distorted (with a decent lens). Rendering an object in 2D does NOT create distortion. What principle of optics are you referring to?

You're done at this point- its clear you have no subject matter knowledge of what you speak

Because?

>>>This is flat out wrong! 2D images don't get flattened out in a photo. There is no difference or distortion than looking at an object with 1 eye.

No

Yes

>>>Where are you getting this stuff? The only effect that the angle to the lens creates is foreshortening. No different from the 3D world. Are you referring to the depth of field "compression effect" between background and foreground caused by lens magnification?

I posted my reference- where is yours coming from is the question

Do you want me to post some photogrammetric diagrams from my school books?

>>>Angular foreshortening effects are EXACTLY the same regardless of distance from the observer. The actual scaling distortion of an object LESSENS farther from the camera. Macro views are the most distortive because the distances from the front and back of an object are relatively large with respect to the distance from the camera.

No

Yes

>>>Wrong! Your expertise obviously doesn't extend to optics.

Yours doesnt extend to anything- thats obvious. You blather and say nothing. Heres your "acid test"- DIMENSION the picture ( its put up or shut up time now)

My discussion has NOTHING to do with dimensioning the picture. Only that your take on measuring images was faulty.

>>>It sure IS your opinion and it's faulty. My criticism has nothing to do with whether or not the PGF can be measured reliably. This is all about misrepresenting the science of image metrology and in particular optics and geomatics

No, its a FACT and all your whining wont change that. Heres the test. Stop whining and start DIMENSIONING. And dont forget to post exactly what each dimension is and how you derived it ( the date will be reviewed)

I'm whining? I thought I was only calling you on your misrepresentation of optics.

There are 2 choices now- the line is in the sand

1) you will and face the critique that I can GUARANTEE is coming and will be blown out of the water

2) you will remain suspiciously silent in the woodwork talking in circles yet never producing anything which will speak for itself.

Your move- I'm here and waiting

Ok, so go ahead and blow me out of the water.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Decades of measuring photos? I doubt it. My pedigree is in astrophysics and geomatics. I know how to rectify a photo. Most of my work these days involves developing GIS applications similar to Google Earth. Rendering oblique views of objects on the earth's surface using ortho photographic methods should apply to this discussion.


Yes it does. The retina is akin to the film, being at the focal point of the lens.


Because?


Yes


Do you want me to post some photogrammetric diagrams from my school books?


Yes


My discussion has NOTHING to do with dimensioning the picture. Only that your take on measuring images was faulty.


I'm whining? I thought I was only calling you on your misrepresentation of optics.


Ok, so go ahead and blow me out of the water.

Thats already done because you are merely talking and jabbering in circles making a feeble attempt to argue around having to produce.

Dimension the photo and post the details- its that simple now stop parsing words. Your "calling" on this alleged misrepresentation was just another "wrong number".

Now get to work

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

You are pretty aware of the weakness of your position and how far you can go. It’s a honest position and I understand how frustrating it can be. One of the keys here is "how far one can go". How far can one go with the available data? Since the evidences are very weak, most of the presented ideas lack solid foundations - even if some ideas happen to be logically consistent.
As a side note, you probably are aware that there are at least two (skeptical) members here who had experiences which could have been attributed to bigfeet -they just do not think bigfeet are the best answer.

I do think that many are good people; unfortunately, most of those who came here to debate seem to have issues when some issues are questioned. I bet you already experienced some very negative reactions when you questioned some of them. And since here we question everything...
The best way to respect those who are worthy of respect is to show them how data should be properly handled.

>>>You are pretty aware of the weakness of your position and how far you can go. It’s a honest position and I understand how frustrating it can be.

I'm not certain of what you mean by the weakness of my position. Personal experiences aside- my position is "prove it" ( which applies to me and all others equally in every situation, BF related or not) The only thing my personal experiences have done is force me to not take the hardcore "hammer of Thor" stance ( that I'm otherwise known for) and keep an open mind ( as well as respect for the frustration of the truly sincere and dedicated BF types= especially those who have had potential sightings themselves)

I force myself to do that because even tho I am a full believer and practicioner of science ( the hard sciences such as physics,chemistry,math and such as apply to my career field)- there have been many times "science" has been found wanting and simply wrong. As true as that is- its equally wrong to take that "fact" beyond what it is. It cannot be used as a sole basis to "prove" BF exists simply because once in a thousand times- "science" fell flat on its fact.

I hesitate to call myself a skeptic,scoftic or even believer. ( out of respect to the theme of this board- let me define myself as I think I am)

I am a "believer" in the POTENTIAL existance of said creature as a 3 D,flesh and blood animal. I also believe "belief" and "skepticism" are equal and legitimate tools of the scientific process used globally to ascertain the facts of any given situation. When it comes to the "final conclusion" ( whatever that is in whatever subject it is)- whatever survives the strongest acid available is more than likely the final answer.( its been my experience that there are really only 3 possible answers to any given situation- factually proving a position, factually refuting a position or a theory[ pro or con] supported by facts but inconclusive)

>>>One of the keys here is "how far one can go". How far can one go with the available data?

Currently, about as far as a rooster can tow a locomotive

>>>Since the evidences are very weak, most of the presented ideas lack solid foundations - even if some ideas happen to be logically consistent.

Agreed ( the rest is my personal OPINION) There is no "factual evidence" currently known that supports the case that BF exists. ( I dont even listen to these reports of this hidden evidence people keep claiming to have or sit on) I am not aware of a single shred of forensic evidence that has been subjected to PROPER testing by QUALIFIED professionals that has yielded a positive result that can be independantly verified by 3rd party replication of results and blind testing. There are 2 "logical" points I consider pointing to "supporting" the premise that BF MAY exist.

1) the PGF- ( before anyone jumps) ONLY because there is nothing on it that I can point to that says 100% undeniably a fake. ( the reverse is equally true- theres nothing that shows it true either) But when you look at it as a whole with all the ancillary issues regarding the players- it does more harm than good. (IMO)

2) the volume of sightings ( using simple logic here- if they all came from BF proponents, I would throw them all out) I believe that the overwhelming majority are either misidentifications, honest errors or just plain hoaxes but I fall short of stating that every last one of them is. ( it does only take 1 to be right) ( this comes only from my experience as an investigator and dealing with witness accounts)

>>>As a side note, you probably are aware that there are at least two (skeptical) members here who had experiences which could have been attributed to bigfeet -they just do not think bigfeet are the best answer.

No, actually I didnt

>>>And since here we question everything...
The best way to respect those who are worthy of respect is to show them how data should be properly handled

I agree 100% and never stop questioning and I'll go one step further. Throw the strongest acid unmercifully on every "alleged" fact because only the truth is going to withstand it. I know of no other way to find the final answer.( whichever way it goes)

 

[Astrophotographer]

I believe that the overwhelming majority are either misidentifications, honest errors or just plain hoaxes but I fall short of stating that every last one of them is. ( it does only take 1 to be right) ( this comes only from my experience as an investigator and dealing with witness accounts)

So you have investigated these kinds of things before or are you an investigator as a profession? I think you put too much weight on this kind of testimony. Most scientists consider this kind of testimony lacking without anything to back them up. Even the most honest person can make a mistake. The problem with many investigators (be it UFOs, bigfoot, ghosts, etc.) who want to believe in something, they often let their bias/belief slip into how they interpret testimony of "sightings".

Of course, you are right it only takes one to be right but there is no evidence to indicate that the "one" has ever happened. One would think that if "one" sighting was accurate in reporting a bigfoot, there would be tons more and lots of quality physical evidence to back it up (not just foot/butt prints). You might as well be talking about ghosts when talking about bigfoot. At least ghosts are not supposed to leave any real evidence behind.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

So you have investigated these kinds of things before or are you an investigator as a profession? I think you put too much weight on this kind of testimony. Most scientists consider this kind of testimony lacking without anything to back them up. Even the most honest person can make a mistake. The problem with many investigators (be it UFOs, bigfoot, ghosts, etc.) who want to believe in something, they often let their bias/belief slip into how they interpret testimony of "sightings".

Of course, you are right it only takes one to be right but there is no evidence to indicate that the "one" has ever happened. One would think that if "one" sighting was accurate in reporting a bigfoot, there would be tons more and lots of quality physical evidence to back it up (not just foot/butt prints). You might as well be talking about ghosts when talking about bigfoot. At least ghosts are not supposed to leave any real evidence behind.

oops, I forgot my background isnt as well known here- my error

>>>So you have investigated these kinds of things before or are you an investigator as a profession? I think you put too much weight on this kind of testimony. Most scientists consider this kind of testimony lacking without anything to back them up. Even the most honest person can make a mistake. The problem with many investigators (be it UFOs, bigfoot, ghosts, etc.) who want to believe in something, they often let their bias/belief slip into how they interpret testimony of "sightings".

I was former MP (95B) and later CID so my references to investigation (s) is in regard to literal Law Enforcement done in the real world. Additionally working as an operator in conjunction with other agencies. ( Operation BAT, JTF-6,JTF-B and others) I also do investigations/expert testimony in various industrial situations such as safety, warranty,damage stuff.

I have NEVER hunted/researched or investigated anything BF related and cannot fathom a circumstance where I ever would.

In spite of the fact that the field of BF contains a majority of people doing their best and applying the best methods available to them- like most things, the most publicized of the fruits of such are so bad they are an insult to the term investigator or investigation.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I was former MP (95B) and later CID so my references to investigation (s) is in regard to literal Law Enforcement done in the real world. Additionally working as an operator in conjunction with other agencies. ( Operation BAT, JTF-6,JTF-B and others) I also do investigations/expert testimony in various industrial situations such as safety, warranty,damage stuff.

My experience has mostly to do with finding causes of problems with the nuclear plant on my subs during my Naval career. Mostly looking for cause and effect (often personnel error unfortunately). I also had experience in dealing with meteor reports in my astronomy hobby and there are other instances, where I looked into a few odd UFO reports over the years. The one thing I learned from the fireball/UFO reports is the same thing that Thomas Huxley wrote long ago:

"Trust a witness in all matters in which neither his self-interest, his passions, his prejudices, nor the love of the marvelous is strongly concerned. When they are involved, require corroborative evidence in exact proportion to the contravention of probablity by the thing testified."

To me, that is a good rule of thumb when it comes to paranormal "sightings" of bigfeet, ghosts, loch ness monsters, ufos, etc.

 

[Correa Neto]

I'm not certain of what you mean by the weakness of my position.

A person who thinks bigfeet may be real but is aware that the evidences available to back its existence are of very bad quality.

Currently, about as far as a rooster can tow a locomotive

Well, my son has some small toy locomotives... A rooster could tow one of them for a long distance, I guess. However, we would still be left with the problem of how to make it go in to the right direction... In other words, proponents must be aware that the ideas the quite often call "theories" usually are nothing but wild speculations.

There are 2 "logical" points I consider pointing to "supporting" the premise that BF MAY exist.

1) the PGF- ( before anyone jumps) ONLY because there is nothing on it that I can point to that says 100% undeniably a fake. ( the reverse is equally true- theres nothing that shows it true either) But when you look at it as a whole with all the ancillary issues regarding the players- it does more harm than good. (IMO)

2) the volume of sightings ( using simple logic here- if they all came from BF proponents, I would throw them all out) I believe that the overwhelming majority are either misidentifications, honest errors or just plain hoaxes but I fall short of stating that every last one of them is. ( it does only take 1 to be right) ( this comes only from my experience as an investigator and dealing with witness accounts)

PGF, I think, is a tainted piece of evidence. If we are benevolent, the best we can say about it is that it is suspected of being a hoax. Good science can not be built over this sort of evidence (OK, every now and then they find their way among science). It is my personal opinion that the mere suspicion of a given dataset being the product of a fraud is enough to put it in to quarantine (actually the garbage bin would be my choice). Slightly OT digression bordering a rant- That's I have little if any consideration regarding any work using it as good "scientific" evidence for bigfoot. Measuring IMs, sizes, inferring weights and naming tracks included.

Sightings...
There are a number of problems with this sort of evidence and you probably already know them, so there's no real need to start another discussion on this. However, if you allow me, I can't help but writing a small comment which will bring us back to the methodology issue.

Since the physical evidence is debatable at best, sightings may as well be the "piece du resistance" for bigfoot. However, until now, I have not seen this sort of evidence being properly treated; only biased analysis or "lump-it-all-together" stuff. To be honest, I have some doubts if a proper methodology can be created for it. There are several problems; I think that possibly the first and most important one is to provide a good answer to the question "why should one consider a bigfoot sighting more seriously than an UFO, lake/sea monster, Virgin Mary or ghost sighting?" All of them are exactly the same sort of evidence.

Maybe one can ignore this issue, but one can not avoid the task of creating and using a good methodology if sighting data is going to be used to support the claim.

I agree 100% and never stop questioning and I'll go one step further. Throw the strongest acid unmercifully on every "alleged" fact because only the truth is going to withstand it. I know of no other way to find the final answer.( whichever way it goes)

That's what we like to do here. We question everything (yep, quite often going down to nitpick level), we go as deep as we can and many of us have pretty strong qualifications, especially when compared with the average www discussion fora. These are the reasons why, I think, many proponents are deeply disgusted with JREF skeptic posters.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

From Correa

In other words, proponents must be aware that the ideas the quite often call "theories" usually are nothing but wild speculations.

Yes- no question about it. Often times the "theory"is a theory in word only and not to any accepted usage of the word

PGF, I think, is a tainted piece of evidence

In reality ( given varying degrees of distortion) EVERY version of the PGF is tainted to a degree except the original itself.

I have not seen this sort of evidence being properly treated; only biased analysis or "lump-it-all-together" stuff. To be honest, I have some doubts if a proper methodology can be created for it.

The only way it could be done PROPERLY (defined as able to collect usable evidence for legitimate and proper examination) would have a trained and equipped forensics team mobile and on stand by ( complete with dogs and tracking equipment)for deployment to a site within a few days at best. The logistics as well as cost would make that prohibitive to anyone who doesnt have a million dollar contributor. Sightings alone, regardless of how well investigated, would never meet the standard of anything beyond the anecdotal so even if the resources were available for utilization- I wouldnt send them on any sighting unless there was a strong potential of gathering evidence or tracking the suspect.

 

[Óðinn]

Thats already done because you are merely talking and jabbering in circles making a feeble attempt to argue around having to produce.

Dimension the photo and post the details- its that simple now stop parsing words. Your "calling" on this alleged misrepresentation was just another "wrong number".

Now get to work

Ah yes, when one's argument is kaput, use misdirection. I guess someone that doesn't comprehend what I was talking about would consider it jabbering. But the onus was not on me to do anything. Even if I did, how would YOU disqualify the results? The onus was on you to defend your own statements, which you can't. Show all of us how you get an error estimate of a few inches or how a photo "flattens" out an image, etc. These claims need qualifying.

...waiting...

I'll be in the water...

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

The "Surgeon's Photograph" took a confession to put it to bed once and for all.

You'd be surprised; there's a movement of sorts to reclassify the picture as "real" (or at least "undetermined"). Cryptomundo is particularly guilty of this and if I'm understanding the previews for "The Water Horse" correctly, they use it as an example of a real picture of Nessie in the film.

This inspired me to reread part of Steuart Campbell's "The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence" (p.37-40) for some pre-confession takes on the photographs. One source claimed it was a bird (crested grebe) and the author leaned heavily towards the otter explanation. Other explanations included a log or root stirred up to the surface and the pectoral fin of a sick pilot whale. There's a brief reference to a rumor in Dr. Wilson's (the surgeon) family about it being a hoax, but most explanations approach it as if he had actually seen and misidentified something rather than accuse him of hoaxing. Which would explain why Mr. Campbell didn't seem to notice some signs that something was up (Wilson refused to discuss the picture with the press, changing aspects of the story, etc.).

 

[Crowlogic]

You'd be surprised; there's a movement of sorts to reclassify the picture as "real" (or at least "undetermined"). Cryptomundo is particularly guilty of this and if I'm understanding the previews for "The Water Horse" correctly, they use it as an example of a real picture of Nessie in the film.

This inspired me to reread part of Steuart Campbell's "The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence" (p.37-40) for some pre-confession takes on the photographs. One source claimed it was a bird (crested grebe) and the author leaned heavily towards the otter explanation. Other explanations included a log or root stirred up to the surface and the pectoral fin of a sick pilot whale. There's a brief reference to a rumor in Dr. Wilson's (the surgeon) family about it being a hoax, but most explanations approach it as if he had actually seen and misidentified something rather than accuse him of hoaxing. Which would explain why Mr. Campbell didn't seem to notice some signs that something was up (Wilson refused to discuss the picture with the press, changing aspects of the story, etc.).

There was series on PBS not long ago where they investigated and debunked things like spontanious human combustion, UFO's, Nessie and others.

They demonstrated exactly how the Surgeons photo was made. Using a period toy submarine and the neck of a toy dinosoaur floated in the shallows and photographed. The recreation was perfect. Not close or maybe but dead on. Of course a constant "re examination and reclassification the old stand bys have to be kept open as long as new and better subjects don't surface. If Cryptomundo closes the classsics it'll have nothing. Or rather less than nothing.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Odinn wrote:

The onus was on you to defend your own statements, which you can't.

That's exactly what I said to LONGTABBER a few days ago.

Until he can demonstrate the distortions he's talking about....his posts are nothing more than "blabbering".

Show all of us how you get an error estimate of a few inches or how a photo "flattens" out an image, etc. These claims need qualifying.

Absolutely....those claims of his need to be demonstrated before they can carry any weight.

 

[manofthesea]

Coddling Hoaxers Now?

I remember the treatment Creekfreak got when he submitted a Doctored photo here. Has something changed since then? (Regarding a recent submitted doctored photo) Or does it serve you better to now allow these shenanigans?

It invites decreased respect towards septicscism. Cheers.

 

[Crowlogic]

I remember the treatment Creekfreak got when he submitted a Doctored photo here. Has something changed since then? (Regarding a recent submitted doctored photo) Or does it serve you better to now allow these shenanigans?

It invites decreased respect towards septicscism. Cheers.

Well you reap what you sow!

 

[LTC8K6]

There's no comparison between Crow's image and Creekfreak's image.

Creek was clearly trying to pass a doctored image as real, even when it was demonstrated to him several times, in several ways, that the image was altered.

Crow has not done that.

 

[manofthesea]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'm sure it's been on a few people's minds.

I don't doubt that you septics didn't target him just because of his failure to use accepted, articulate language.

Nothing personal Crow, I'm sure you understand that those of us who have had personal experiences with this creature, although we're constantly mocked and badgered, would like some consistency in skeptical discourses. Otherwise there could be a sudden flood of 'doctored evidences' presented, then recanted articulately without fear of shunning and banning. And that would only muddy whatever honest research is being now done, however small and amateurish. It's basically regular people who have the 'balls' to go into the forest looking for a large and potentially dangerous creature, and not your run of the mill phd.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I don't doubt that you septics didn't target him just because of his failure to use accepted, articulate language.

The first time you spelled skepticism or sceptism as "septicscism" and I figured it was a typo. Now you are saying "septics". Not to be the grammar or spelling police but I wanted to point out that "septic" is defined as "pertaining to or of the nature of sepsis; infected". Are you trying to be funny here or is it that you just can't spell skeptic/sceptic (I believe the Brits spell it with a "c")?