Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Astrophotographer said:
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")?
Click to expand...

Attention to detail isn't one of MOTS strong points.

RayG
 
I'll refrain from using 'septic'. But 'septicscism' is a cool word. Couldn't resist the barb, but I genuinely wanted the question of that particular photo resolved. I felt it has if that is the consensus.
 
It wasn't that long ago that I noticed Crowlogic typed Sasquatach. I thought it was a passing typo that would get corrected soon enough. Nope. It's now standard routine for Crow; spelled that way even on BFF.

Sasquatach - 12,500 rpm. Why so many revs? It's how he always stays ahead of the human race!
 
William Parcher said:
It wasn't that long ago that I noticed Crowlogic typed Sasquatach. I thought it was a passing typo that would get corrected soon enough. Nope. It's now standard routine for Crow; spelled that way even on BFF.

Sasquatach - 12,500 rpm. Why so many revs? It's how he always stays ahead of the human race!
Click to expand...


I'm flattered that you're peeking onto BFF at Lil Ol' me! Yes the great ones always have a following I suppose. lol!
 
LONGTABBER PE said:
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.
Click to expand...
What are the criteria so far used to labell a sighting as good? Untill now, investigator's bias, IMHO. There's no methodological consistency, internal and external. What are the criteria?
Witness' "sincerity"? Not good enough. If a witness is telling the truth (or what he/she perceives as truth) it does not mean the facts were exactly as he/she perceived and described. Not to mention the world is full of good liars.

Location? We all (OK, most of us) would agree that a bigfoot sighting at Central Park is bogus. The end members are clear. But between the Central Park and the Pacific Northwest, where and how to draw the line?

Description? Bigfoot renderings based on eyewitnesses reports are very variable. Besides bipedal and hairy, there is a great variation of details - glowing eyes included. Where to draw the line?

I could go on, but I think it is enough. Before considering the idea of creating "bigfoot sightings stormtroopers", the questions above must be answered. Before using sighting reports to inferr bigfoot behavior, the questions above must be answered. Before using sighting report data as evidence to support bigfeet as real animals, the questions above must be answered.
 
Astrophotographer said:
However, there is no proof it is a real bigfoot and plenty to indicate it could be a fake. The easiest method to prove it is a real bigfoot is to produce a body.
Click to expand...


The easiest method to determine what the Patterson subject is, or most likely is, is to analyse the film directly, Astro.
The animated-gif of Patty's left leg shows movement which more closely resembles real muscle than it does padding.

Interestingly.....in all of your responses to my posts concerning this animated-gif, you keep trying to divert the focus off of the gif, by using the "still no Bigfoot body" tactic.

Are you afraid to deal directly with the apparant muscle movement shown in the gif, Astro??



However, looking at the images there is nothing in the PGF that indicates we are seeing a real bigfoot... Everything in the film can be reproduced by a guy in a suit.
Click to expand...


The bulging mass on the back of Patty's left leg.....combined with the fact that the skin area directly around that bulging mass does not bulge, but instead stays tight against the body...indicates that we are actually seeing real muscle movement along with real skin/hair on the back of Patty's leg.

While you can say that "everything in the film can be reproduced by a guy-in-suit".....the truth of the matter is....nobody, including you, can show that to be the case.

Jref skeptics are all just "hot air", apparantly. :) (And that's a good thing, for us Bigfoot proponents.)
 
Last edited:
This looks more like a costume now than it did before. And I think the gif shows the crappiness of the costume clearly.

The Actors leg seems to be straight, and the costume wraps around the front and sides of the leg in a 'Chap-like' manner.

 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
The easiest method to determine what the Patterson subject is, or most likely is, is to analyse the film directly, Astro.
The animated-gif of Patty's left leg shows movement which more closely resembles real muscle than it does padding.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. Do you have a degree in this sort of analysis? Can you be sure it is more likely muscle than padding? No, you can not. So we have a choice. It is a creature nobody has ever shown to exist and it is muscle movement or it is a suit with padding. The probability continues to point towards the guy in the suit no matter how much you wave your arms and press the "I believe this" button.


SweatyYeti said:
Interestingly.....in all of your responses to my posts concerning this animated-gif, you keep trying to divert the focus off of the gif, by using the "still no Bigfoot body" tactic.

Are you afraid to deal directly with the apparant muscle movement shown in the gif, Astro??
Click to expand...

Not afraid at all but I don't consider myself an expert on this matter. I can stare at it until the cows come home and state that it looks like padding and you can state it looks like muscles. It is all a matter of how you view the film.
Additionally, how do you know where a bigfoot's muscles are and what sizes they are? We have no body to analyze so the structure is assumed to be a certain way but is this absolute? You have to make the assumption that this is a bigfoot and this is how its body behaves.


SweatyYeti said:
The bulging mass on the back of Patty's left leg.....combined with the fact that the skin area directly around that bulging mass does not bulge, but instead stays tight against the body...indicates that we are actually seeing real muscle movement along with real skin/hair on the back of Patty's leg.
Click to expand...

This is all your assumptions and your interpretation. You are NOT an expert to the best of my knowledge on muscles and skin. Therefore, your opinion carries very little weight. Is it real? Nobody can say for sure but we are again back to square one. It is either a real bigfoot or a guy in a suit. Until you can provide physical evidence that bigfoot really exists as a creature then the more likely answer is it is a guy in a suit and the effects you are seeing have more to do with a suit than a real bigfoot.


SweatyYeti said:
While you can say that "everything in the film can be reproduced by a guy-in-suit".....the truth of the matter is....nobody, including you, can show that to be the case.

Jref skeptics are all just "hot air", apparantly. :) (And that's a good thing, for us Bigfoot proponents
Click to expand...

Again, you are trying to shift the burden of proof because you privately admit you don't have a body and are not likely to get one anytime soon (or ever for that matter). You state it is a real bigfoot but can not prove it. Skeptics say it is probably a guy in a suit but really can not prove it because we don't have the suit or a confession (IMO, even with such evidence it still would not matter to diehard BF proponents). So we are left at a standstill. The only way the issue can be resolved is to show a real live bigfoot or a bigfoot body. Even a skeleton will do. Yet, this has not been done. As a result, the more likely answer is that it is a guy in a suit until proponents can show otherwise.

If you say that is a "good thing" for BF proponents then you are fooling yourself. If that is what you want to "believe" then feel free to do so. However, you will not convince anybody outside your little clique of bigfoot believers/proponents that bigfoot exists and this film shows a real bigfoot with that methodology. Everyone else will shrug and say "show me the body".
 
Astrophotographer wrote:
Can you be sure it is more likely muscle than padding?
Click to expand...


Can you reproduce the movement...the bulging...and, along with that, the lack of a separation of the suit from the back of the leg, with padding, Astro?


I doubt you can. :)


If nobody can reproduce it...then by what reasoning should we all conclude that it's 100% likely to be padding??



I'll respond to more of your post tomorrow.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Can you reproduce the movement...the bulging...and, along with that, the lack of a separation of the suit from the back of the leg, with padding, Astro?


I doubt you can.

If nobody can reproduce it...then by what reasoning should we all conclude that it's 100% likely to be padding??
Click to expand...

Hmmm...can you reproduce a bigfoot for all of us to see? I doubt you can.

Gee...that was easy. I can sound just like SY.

To answer your question, I already have stated I am not an expert on suits and do not claim to be. You seem to think you are one though. From what I have seen of Dfoot's demonstrations, you need to ask him or somebody else who makes these types of suits. My guess is that some suit builder somewhere could do it especially when using the camera in question. However, I also have commented that no matter how good any reproduction suit is, you (and other bigfoot proponents) will state it is not good enough and raise another objection. So what would be the point of trying?

It all boils down to which is more likely....a suit or a bigfoot. You disregarded any evidence that indicates it is probably a suit and declare, from your own "expert" opinion, that it is not a suit. If that is what you believe, good for you. However, I would like to point out that there have been quite a few experts (real experts, not self-procalimed ones) who looked at the film and feel it is probably a guy in a suit. Apparently, where you see muscles, they see padding or parts of a suit. For instance, Dr. Daegling is a biological anthropologist who specializes in the study of primate anatomy and biomechanics. He wrote a book on the subject of bigfoot and is of the opinion that it is probably a guy in a suit. I think I would put more weight on his opinion than yours. So keep convincing yourself because you don't appear to be convincing anybody but those that already think bigfoot exists.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Astrophotographer wrote:



Was Roger Patterson an 'expert' on suits?


More later...
Click to expand...

This presents the problem of exactly how competient Roger Patterson actually was. I think if we were to list every talent Patterson was thought to have possessed at one time or another we'd find ourselves with a kind of Rennisance man. If he was half as good as some think then he must have gone out of his way to avoid putting those talents to legitimate use.
 
Astro wrote:
To answer your question... (SY asked: Can you reproduce the movement...the bulging...and, along with that, the lack of a separation of the suit from the back of the leg, using padding, Astro?)

I already have stated I am not an expert on suits and do not claim to be.
You seem to think you are one though. From what I have seen of Dfoot's demonstrations, you need to ask him or somebody else who makes these types of suits. My guess is that some suit builder somewhere could do it especially when using the camera in question. However, I also have commented that no matter how good any reproduction suit is, you (and other bigfoot proponents) will state it is not good enough and raise another objection. So what would be the point of trying?
Click to expand...



Hey Astro.....this isn't ROCKET SCIENCE, you know. It's padding stuffed inside of a pant leg (according to all you Jref "whiz kids". :rolleyes: )
So what's the big deal??

Why would it be so difficult to reproduce the movement/bulging we see here?...

PattyLLEGgif33.gif



Why not give it a try, Astro?


Astro thoughtfully ;) wrote:
I also have commented that no matter how good any reproduction suit is, you (and other bigfoot proponents) will state it is not good enough...

So what would be the point of trying?
Click to expand...


It's irrelevant whether or not someone accepts your analysis, or mine, for that matter. Analysis should be done for the sake of analysis itself.

That's the main reason why I post images and animated-gifs...to try to find the truth....not so that my analysis will be "accepted" and skeptics will all "believe in Bigfoot".
I don't care what anybody "believes"....and it doesn't matter to me whether or not others accept my analysis. The only thing I'm interested in from skeptics is counter-analysis which carries some weight (analysis which is supported by something).

That so-called "reason" of yours (and the rest of the gang's here) is nothing more than a lame, first-grader's excuse used to avoid backing-up and supporting your proposals and statements.....which, when unsupported, are essentially worthless and meaningless. (Like LONGBLABBER'S "lesson" on image distortion, as one example.)



Also...I asked you this question in an earlier post....

If nobody can reproduce it...then by what reasoning should we all conclude that it's 100% likely to be padding??
Click to expand...


It's one thing to think it might be a padded leg....but quite another to know with 100% certainty that it is.
So, on what reason should we base our "conclusion" that it's definitely a padded-leg....if NO-ONE can ever reproduce, with padding, the combination of bulging 'muscle', and tight-fitting skin??

Should we all just play "Skeptical Make-Believe?" :D
 
Last edited:
Astrophotographer wrote:
Maybe or maybe not. We don't know.
However, he (Roger) could have known somebody who made suits and gotten help.
Click to expand...



But, Astro....Drewbot says this about Roger's "suit"...

This looks more like a costume now than it did before. And I think the gif shows the crappiness of the costume clearly.
Click to expand...


So, which is it.....is the "suit" crappy (unambiguous)....or is it so good (ambiguous) that we should consider the possiblity that Roger got some help from a suit expert??

Choose your answer carefully, Astro. ;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom