Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[SweatyYeti]

I don't think anyone really has tried very hard to do so SY.

But Astro....according to YOU....it shouldn't require much effort at all.

You said.......

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

So, why would anyone have to try "very hard" to film a "crappy suit from a distance"?
Wouldn't that be a very easy thing to do?

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.

Dfoot has tried....and so far has failed, I'm happy to report!

 

[Astrophotographer]

So, why would anyone have to try "very hard" to film a "crappy suit from a distance"?
Wouldn't that be a very easy thing to do?

I did not say it would be easy. Feel free to give me some funding for the suit (3-4,000 would be a good start), a trip to California so I can shoot in the location of the original film (this would include room, food, transportation, etc), and a working film camera (with several rolls of film) of the same type and I might be able to pull it off with a little help from somebody who can build a reasonable suit (BTW Crappy does not mean some monkey suit at I Party). Right there requires some significant funding. I am not willing to spend that kind of loot (esp with winter coming in New England and also my daughter's wedding) to prove a point. As I have stated numerous times, no matter how good the film would be, you would give an excuse as to why it does not look like the PGF. If you are so confident it can not be done, you pay. I will be waiting for the check.

Dfoot has tried....and so far has failed, I'm happy to report!

I am unaware of Dfoot's efforts to produce a film of a crappy suit. Maybe I was not paying attention. Perhaps you can direct us to the video/film he shot so we can all be the judge. Otherwise your claim that he "failed" is not an accurate statement.

 

[mangler]

666 = Sweaty fails miserably when it comes to accuracy.
PI = Photo Included.

666, PI


m

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

Otherwise your claim that he "failed" is not an accurate statement.

Well.....he's been working on his Patty suit for the last few years, as far as I know, with no video of it in motion, yet.

How about this....you call it a success......I'll call it a failure.

 

[Aepervius]

If by "failing at accuracy" covers also pure logic statements, then the for the above statement from SY : 666 PNN.

PNN=Picture Not Necessary

 

[kitakaze]

Witness an amazing disintegrating Sweaty tactic:

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....

Ah?

Dfoot has tried....and so far has failed, I'm happy to report!

Oh?

Well.....he's been working on his Patty suit for the last few years, as far as I know, with no video of it in motion, yet.

Eh?

So what do we code the 'no one's been able to reproduce the PGF' stinker? I say we spare the kid's the unfortunate sexual connotation and call it a 96 because no matter how many times you spin it it still comes up the same.

And of course we need to codify the natural 'show me one group or individual who has committed a concerted effort into reproducing the PGF and its subject'. Might I suggest the number 69? You know, because it's fun and it'll get the kids attention.

 

[bruto]

Astro wrote:



Well.....he's been working on his Patty suit for the last few years, as far as I know, with no video of it in motion, yet.

How about this....you call it a success......I'll call it a failure.

And nobody has produced a bigfoot body yet either. Yet, as you would undoubtedly acknowledge, if it hasn't happened yet, it also hasn't failed. Like bigfoot itself, it remains both unproven and undisproven.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

a trip to California

You don't need to go anywhere to duplicate the movement we see on the back of Patty's leg...

Do you think you can stuff a little padding inside of a pant-leg, and re-create the same appearance of muscle movement, Astro??

Here is something very similar to the back of Patty's leg....

Also....your "Crappy Suit filmed in low-resolution" theory needs a LOT of refining.
Here is a good example of a crappy suit seen under crappy resolution....

Not even close to the body contour and detail that we see with Patty.

 

[Astrophotographer]

How about this....you call it a success...I'll call it a failure.

Again, you put words in my mouth I did not say. I never stated it was a success since it implies completion. If you are calling it a failure then I consider most of your posts a failure in this forum since you like to ask questions and demand people answer them. However, when asked questions you avoid them with promises to get back to them (but never do). That is a failure to respond and it implies you can't answer the questions or don't want to answer the questions because it might reveal something that would shake your belief in bigfoot.

BTW, I still want to know what you think the probability of the subject being bigfoot is? A simple question that requires a simple answer. Are you afraid to admit that you will have to admit that it "might" be a guy in a suit?

 

[Astrophotographer]

You don't need to go anywhere to duplicate the movement we see on the back of Patty's leg....

This is also the same image that shows a heel sticking out that looks more like somebody where a fake foot than anything that makes sense. I suggest you read "bigfoot exposed" page 144. You can read it here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uJi7VQPmEQ8C&dq=bigfoot+exposed&pg=PP1&ots=EiEklDYB5P&sig=S-nPe6aaqWmY9lq-j8X3F2Tdv4Y&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA144,M1

Remember, this guy is an expert and not a self-proclaimed one like yourself.

Also....your "Crappy Suit filmed in low-resolution" theory needs a LOT of refining.
Here is a good example of a crappy suit seen under crappy resolution....Not even close to the body contour and detail that we see with Patty.

Different suit filmed under different conditions and then turned into a low-resolution image that is blocky. An incorrect comparison AGAIN. Your argument fails. I still need my check if you want to make a serious attempt at this. If you were so confident, I think you would have taken me up on my offer. You can still call mythbusters maybe they will do it for the show and prove you wrong. BTW, didn't Penn and Teller fool some bigfoot proponents with a crappy suit filmed under the right conditions?

Oh, this is the same image I used to demonstrate that Bob's arms are not too short. An image comparison you did not refute in anyway other than stating (as I recall) it was wrong to compare Bob in a suit with "patty/bunny" and it was better to compare him outside a suit, which is completely backward if you are trying to test if "patty/bunny" is Bob in a suit.

 

[drapier]

Again, you put words in my mouth I did not say. I never stated it was a success since it implies completion.

Expect Sweaty to razzle-dazzle us with some brilliant word play to demonstrate that you actually did say "success" even if you don't think you did.

BTW, I still want to know what you think the probability of the subject being bigfoot is? A simple question that requires a simple answer. Are you afraid to admit that you will have to admit that it "might" be a guy in a suit?

Sweaty doesn't do numbers. He likes savoring small slices of probability (or is that ambiguity-- they mean the same in Sweaty's world, don't they?). No chance is so small that it couldn't be the basis for endless wondering on the topic. And once you add up all those slivers, don't they eventually have to top 100%?

 

[Drewbot]

GT-CS, please post #27 again, this time with the coresponding picture. And I will ask that Sweaty respond with something other than a '1-Alpha'.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is something very similar to the back of Patty's leg....

And you must think a Yugo is similar to a Ferrari because they both have four wheels ...

Here, this will fix it..

 

[Crowlogic]

From what I've seen of Dfoots padding examples there's nothing in what he's produced that resembles the calf buldges that SY has posted. If he were to fur his padding we'd see a smooth featureless calf without apparent muscle defination. Those buldges really need to be in a good reproduction. So IMNOHO those buldges are an improtant detail.

Now I see there another post of the Morris recreation. Now there we have one first rate class act of DA BOSS! It only looks like a POS because we don't have the benifit of Patterson's expert camera work and the great lighting of the PGF. So let's cut ol' Phil a break its not his fault that he was able to get the same mime in his suit and apply an additional 40 years of his experience at costume making only to have it look like a walking dung heap. Its the "aholes" that filmed his masterpiece. Hmmm wait I guess you can't go home again again.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Sweaty has adopted those images of the left leg bulges as examples of how real muscles would look.. They are nothing of the sort..

When I questioned them at BFF

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=16893&hl=


They were dismissed as one frame anomalies or distortions of light and shadow..
Bill Munns allowed they were suspicious looking, but didn't lend themselves to any analysis that ruled out suit/padding...

I suggest they rule out real muscle, because no real primate leg muscles look that way ..

 

[Crowlogic]

Sweaty has adopted those images of the left leg bulges as examples of how real muscles would look.. They are nothing of the sort..

When I questioned them at BFF

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=16893&hl=


They were dismissed as one frame anomalies or distortions of light and shadow..
Bill Munns allowed they were suspicious looking, but didn't lend themselves to any analysis that ruled out suit/padding...

I suggest they rule out real muscle, because no real primate leg muscles look that way ..

And yet the PGF leg buldges lend more of an authentic air to the PGF than the Morris sack of fur. Real muscles? Fake muscles? Not my concern. Good suit (with details that are at least open to discussion) vs bad suit (Morris recreation) that's worth the words. If I was to know nothing about Bigfoot and saw the Patty leg buldges and then the Morris recreation I'd be far more apt to consider the PGF as a real animal.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Very well said, Crow.


How about we bring this line back for an encore......

So let's cut ol' Phil a break its not his fault that he was able to get the same mime in his suit and apply an additional 40 years of his experience at costume making only to have it look like a walking dung heap.

And now, folks.....a word of wisdom from Astro....'bout crappy suits....

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

Yeah...right.



Diogenes wrote:

I suggest they rule out real muscle, because no real primate leg muscles look that way

I suggest that no padded-leg can show that degree of bulging, while the area directly around the bulge remains tight against the leg.

Nobody here seems to want to even try replicating it......and for good reason....because they can't.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Yeah...right.

Case in point SY, the Penn and Teller film. A crappy suit was filmed and looked "real enough" to fool several bigfoot proponents.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-547663380144140065&q=penn+teller+bigfoot&ei=8uyQSPPLNo_ArgLYsYSxBA&hl=en

I rest my case a "crappy suit" filmed from a distance under the right conditions can look real enough and pass scrutiny.

Nobody here seems to want to even try replicating it......and for good reason....because they can't.

I am still waiting for my check Sweaty. Did you mail it yet? I can't start until you provide the funding.

BTW, we are still waiting for one small piece of evidence that can be verified as coming from a bigfoot monster. People have tried for over 40 years since this film was produced. The lack of real evidence is telling. Why haven't you gone out searching for bigfoot? Is it possible you don't think you can do any better or is it because, deep down, you know it is highly unlikely that bigfoot really exists. The lack of response by you towards my question about your probability inidcates you must believe it is pretty low.

Also you have failed to explain the "extended heel" on Aunt Bunny. I noticed you avoided that point as well. You failed again.

 

[kitakaze]

Does Sweaty or any Patty fan feel like playing a round of "Yeah, and?" It's really fun, I'll just basically spot you anything you wanna pitch about the PGF and then I say "Yeah, and?"

Here's a sampler:

Patty Fan: Patty's fingers bend and her arms are longer than those of Bob Heironimus, thus he can not be the one in the suit!

kitakaze: Yeah, and?

PF: Well that shoots down a prominent skeptical theory regarding the veracity of the PGF!

kitakaze: Yeah, and?

PF: Thus the question of the said veracity of the PGF shifts in favour of the creature being a real animal!

kk: *winces* Yeah, and?

PF: Thus we have established the PGF as evidence of paramount importance in establishing the existence of the elusive sasquatch.

kk: Yeah, and?

PF: Armed with the PGF as seen in this current light we must lobby the scientific establishment to accept its responsibility in confirming and cataloguing the existence of Bigfoot.

kk: *chuckles* Yeah, and?

PF: And, sir, we must approach the various branches of federal, state, and provincial governments to remind them of their responsibilities in protecting this magnificent species.

I could continue but I would like to take a break to ask opinions on when and if "Yeah, and?" should become "Hey, super! You go have fun with that."

I think it would be more socially sensitive than playing "Holy crap! Hey, everybody! Check out these cats trying to get people to take Bigfoot seriously with a 40 year old piece of crap film."

 

[bruto]

Does Sweaty or any Patty fan feel like playing a round of "Yeah, and?" It's really fun, I'll just basically spot you anything you wanna pitch about the PGF and then I say "Yeah, and?"

Here's a sampler:

Patty Fan: Patty's fingers bend and her arms are longer than those of Bob Heironimus, thus he can not be the one in the suit!

kitakaze: Yeah, and?

PF: Well that shoots down a prominent skeptical theory regarding the veracity of the PGF!

kitakaze: Yeah, and?

PF: Thus the question of the said veracity of the PGF shifts in favour of the creature being a real animal!

kk: *winces* Yeah, and?

PF: Thus we have established the PGF as evidence of paramount importance in establishing the existence of the elusive sasquatch.

kk: Yeah, and?

PF: Armed with the PGF as seen in this current light we must lobby the scientific establishment to accept its responsibility in confirming and cataloguing the existence of Bigfoot.

kk: *chuckles* Yeah, and?

PF: And, sir, we must approach the various branches of federal, state, and provincial governments to remind them of their responsibilities in protecting this magnificent species.

I could continue but I would like to take a break to ask opinions on when and if "Yeah, and?" should become "Hey, super! You go have fun with that."

I think it would be more socially sensitive than playing "Holy crap! Hey, everybody! Check out these cats trying to get people to take Bigfoot seriously with a 40 year old piece of crap film."

Common in many realms where logic is stretched and broken, including morality, politics and religion as well as bigfootery, I think of this as "the transitive property of the tantamount."