Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Drewbot]

Parcher,
Do you know who bought the ANE company?
Has anyone tried to contact the owner of the alleged original?\

Thanks

 

[RayG]

.... you are therefore saying that....

"we cannot say that the identity of Patty, i.e. man or beast, is "uncertain" (ambiguous).....and neither can we say that it is certain (unambiguous).

No, that's not what he was saying, you need to turn your comprehension meter up a notch or two. He was addressing the question of a suit (posed by you, I might add), not the identity of the film subject.

Sweaty, all the tap-dancing and semantic prancing in the world isn't going to make bigfoot real. Live with it.

Want to really stick it to those old nasty naysayers, those sour skeptics? Then quit mucking about with wishful-thinking, speculation, and alleged evidence, and produce some incontrovertible proof of bigfoot. A complete body isn't necessary, a foot, hand, head, or skeletal remains will do.

Is that so hard?

RayG

 

[Astrophotographer]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

SY's standard response to everything he does not understand or cannot comprehend. Be careful sweaty, you may be ready for the special room and jacket.

According to you, Astro......we cannot say whether the basic identity of the Patterson Film subject (man or beast) is ambiguous or unambiguous.

I never used the words ambiguous or unambiguous. Those are your words. You asked me to determine if it was a crappy suit or not. I told you we cannot say because it might or might not be a crappy suit. Some feel it is but I can not make a determination of this based on the information available.

Is that a fair assessment of what you are, in fact, saying, Astro??

Nope. Not even close. Feel free to interpret however you wish but do not start saying I said one thing when I was talking about a completley different matter.

Astro's "universal" response to all of my posts.

"Where's the proof....got a body?"

Why is it, you never answer my questions and DEMAND that I answer your loaded questions. Maybe it is because you realize you are on very shaky ground here. You proclaim that this is a film of a living breathing bigfoot but when people ask you to demonstrate that it is, you fail to do so. You then resort to the tried and true tactic of trying to shift the burden of proof. We (I think I can speak for most skeptics) want something more than the film to render judgement. The film itself has no evidence (despite all your proclamations and crayon drawings) to indicate it is not a guy in a suit. Therefore, it probably is a guy in a suit until you can prove otherwise. To prove otherwise means to provide physical evidence to show the reality of bigfoot. Why isn't there undeniable and verifiable evidence for the existence of bigfoot even though it has been over 40 years since this film was made? Are bigfoot proponents just so inept they don't know how to gather the evidence or is it they are more interested in perpetuating a mystery for their own personal gain/glory?

 

[William Parcher]

Parcher,
Do you know who bought the ANE company?
Has anyone tried to contact the owner of the alleged original?\

Thanks

I already posted this here, but will do it again for you. Look at Post #52.

 

[Drewbot]

Thanks Parcher.

http://southeastsasquatchassociation.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_archive.html

I never knew about this place. It has the Cowboy line-up picture on there, and says that this is what led to the misconception that BobH was involved with P/G. So it brought me back here, looking for the post about Gimlin admitting that he was on BobH's horse at Bluff Creek, and I can't find it. I have searched, and I am now asking for another Parcher bailout on where that information is located.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

I never used the words 'ambiguous' or 'unambiguous'.
Those are your words.

Actually, Astro....you've already admitted that the PG Film subject's identity (man or beast) is ambiguous........with these words of yours......enjoy....

...the more likely answer is that it is a guy in a suit until proponents can show otherwise.

Therefore, it probably is a guy in a suit until you can prove otherwise.

You disregarded any evidence that indicates it is probably a suit

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.

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.

Like I said earlier, if a biological anthropologist who specializes in the study of primate anatomy and biomechanics is under the impression that this could be the effects of a suit and not muscle movement, as you claim, then I am more apt to accept his opinion over your less trained and skilled opinion.

I'm sensing a certain ambiguity, a little uncertainty here, Astro.........aren't you??


Trying to separate the ambiguity of the "suit" and the ambiguity of Patty's identity (man or beast) is an intellectually dishonest thing to do. There is no real difference between the two, in the case of the PG Film.

If you take a crappy suit, and film it under crappy circumstances...you will NOT get something that's as ambiguous, yet with the clarity of body contour and apparant muscle movement as we see in Patty...

If you think that fuzzing-up an image of a crappy suit will bring out this kind of detail, Astro....then you're only fooling yourself.

 

[drapier]

Probable = Ambiguous?

Haven't you been railing against skeptics who demand proof?

Wouldn't a good skeptic write in terms of probability rather than certainty?

Come on, Sweaty, this is a low quality of shuck and jive. As one of your greatest fans, I expect better of you.

If it bends, it pretends! Joyce lives!

 

[Astrophotographer]

Actually, Astro....you've already admitted that the PG Film subject's identity (man or beast) is ambiguous........with these words of yours...enjoy.....

I have constantly stated in this forum that nobody can say for a certainty that the subject in the film is one thing or the other. However, what I have stated numerous times is that the most likely scenario is a guy in a suit. Not once have you demonstrated that it can not be a guy in a suit. If you were to ask me to gamble a substantial amount of money, I would put it on the guy in the suit. My opinion is that it is 99% likely it is a guy in a suit based on the COLD HARD FACT that nobody has been able to show that bigfoot exists. I leave 1% for the very unlikely possibility that bigfoot may indeed show up. So what do you think the liklihood of the subject being bigfoot is, Sweaty? I think the inquiring minds would love to hear. 100%, 80%, 50%, maybe less?

If you take a crappy suit, and film it under crappy circumstances...you will NOT get something that's as ambiguous, yet with the clarity of body contour and apparant muscle movement as we see in Patty...

Back to your usual subjective interpretation again. I notice you now say "apparent" muscle movement. Are you now doubting that it is muscle movement SY? BTW, I think it looks a bit baggy and does not have the "clarity of body contour" you claim but that is my own subjective opinion.

However, you are incorrect on the "crappy suit" hypothesis. A crappy suit filmed from a distance under the right conditions could look real enough and pass scrutiny. Especially, if those filming it had already done a trial run to see how the "crappy suit" looks under the right conditions. I think special effects artists have known this since they started creating suits for the movies. Of course, how do we quantify "realistic"? We can not. It is a subjective opinion. Where you see muscle movement and clear body contours, others see padding and a poorly fitted suit.

Believe all you want but you still haven't proven that it is not a guy in a suit and it is bigfoot.

 

[William Parcher]

Thanks Parcher.

http://southeastsasquatchassociation.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_archive.html

I never knew about this place. It has the Cowboy line-up picture on there, and says that this is what led to the misconception that BobH was involved with P/G. So it brought me back here, looking for the post about Gimlin admitting that he was on BobH's horse at Bluff Creek, and I can't find it. I have searched, and I am now asking for another Parcher bailout on where that information is located.

That is Henry May's website. It's been linked to numerous times in this thread.

Your info can be found here. Watch for the posts by Roger Knights. Henry May is bf2004 over there, and he is bf2006 here.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Speakin of arms, here's a video featuring JREF favorite Red King. However, I should note that there were multiple versions of Red King, so I can't say for sure if this shows the same suit as the one in the picture that was posted awhile back.

 

[RayG]

Sweaty, why do you waste your time banging heads with closed-minded skeptics, when you could compose something and fire it off to Nature for publication?

I mean if you're convinced of the validity of your claims, and can show sufficient evidence for those claims, surely Nature would be supportive, no?

RayG



RayG

 

[drapier]

Excellent idea, Ray. I'm sure Nature would be happy to receive some line drawings proving Bigfoot is a 2 dimensional creature with a pinhead.

Sweaty?

 

[tube]

Happy Birthday!

I mean, to the thread that is!

Seeing as how the totality of information about a 52 second piece of film shot more than 40 years ago has more or less been extracted, I'd like to propose the following protocol for continued participation.

Since the same arguments come up again, and again, and again, we should simply assign them a code number. For instance when Sweaty posts "but look at these bending fingers" for the 678th time, simply assign it a number, say 45. Though a number of responses have been forthcoming, including from me, the best is still Dfoot's GIF animation of his moving ape costume fingers. To save bandwidth, we can simply assign Dfoot's animation its own code number too, say 36.

The conversation would go something like this:

Sweaty:

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

45!

Parcher:

36.

Kitakaze;

36.

Tube:

36.

And so on...

Seriously, I have found a number of very interesting points made, information presented, and we have been visited by a number of interesting people. But sadly, the noise to signal ratio is high, due to the abominably low quality of logic from people like Sweaty, and the unbridled fanaticism of people like "LAL".

If you go to the very nut of Patterson film advocacy, to people like Jeff Meldrum, Chris Murphy, and Daniel Perez, you still find all sorts of holes in logic, interpretation, and historical documentation.

You can't get blood from a stone, which is why I am largely finished participating, at least in this thread.

IT'S ALL BEEN EXTRACTED, AND IT COMES UP SHORT. A cool piece of footage, but it's not a body, and never can be. It's very likely Bob Heironimus in a suit.

 

[William Parcher]

Maybe in the end (ad infinitum) there are only two argument code numbers.

#1) You haven't shown that Bigfoot exists.

#2) You haven't shown that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

 

[kitakaze]

Since the same arguments come up again, and again, and again, we should simply assign them a code number. For instance when Sweaty posts "but look at these bending fingers" for the 678th time, simply assign it a number, say 45. Though a number of responses have been forthcoming, including from me, the best is still Dfoot's GIF animation of his moving ape costume fingers. To save bandwidth, we can simply assign Dfoot's animation its own code number too, say 36.

tube is absolutely right. I've had similar thoughts during many a Sweaty rerun. This is important thinking and we should implement it right away.

That said, and please keep in mind that code 36 is fantastic and I'm a personal fan of the 36, maybe we could have something like a code 3 or B-52 or what-have-you that could stand for "Yeah, and?"

45, B-52... No fuss, no muss.

 

[SweatyYeti]

drapier wrote:

Probable = Ambiguous?

If you don't already know that 'probable' and 'ambiguous' have very similar, and related meanings, drapier.....then you're an idiot.


Probable: "likely but not certain to be"

Ambiguous: "of doubtful or uncertain nature"


It's like I'm talking to first-graders here...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

A crappy suit filmed from a distance under the right conditions could look real enough and pass scrutiny.

Really???

That's an interesting theory, Astro. If it's true....then it should be extremely easy to produce a Bigfoot video that compares closely to the PG Film, as far as it's combinations of clarity of view, body contour, and apparant muscle movements.

Oddly, though.....not only has no-one been able to produce anything comparable.....nobody seems able to produce even ONE single aspect of Patty's "suit"....such as the calf muscle movement...

More on this later.

 

[Drewbot]

GTCS - wrist band question, from now on it is designated #27

and Sweaty's "I'll get to it later" response is forthwith designated as Sweaty Response
#1-alpha.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Oddly, though.....not only has no-one been able to produce anything comparable.....nobody seems able to produce even ONE single aspect of Patty's "suit"....such as the calf muscle movement....

I don't think anyone really has tried very hard to do so SY. If they did and did reproduce the film, you would simply state that Patterson could never have done it or that it proves nothing. This is why nobody really tries. Maybe you ought to call mythbusters. It would make for an interesting show to say the least.

BTW, that is from the same sequence of images I used to demonstrate that the arms were NOT too long. That was the analysis you PROMISED to get back to me some months back. Your promises are like your analyses. They are flawed and fail miserbly.
However, you, once again, dodged my question. How likely do you consider the subject in this film is a real bigfoot? How about a percentage value?

More on this later.

Translation: Maybe I can ignore it long enough so people will forget.

 

[GT/CS]

Snip......
However, you, once again, dodged my question. How likely do you consider the subject in this film is a real bigfoot? How about a percentage value?
......Snip

And Sweaty, while you're at it, #27.



Hey, I like this!

Does using the number assume the photo is included?