Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Crowlogic]

Piece of crap film? Did I read that correctly? Piece of crap film? I need to be sure that those are the words that were used to define the PGF in a recent post. Well what does it say about either end of the equation that how many thousands of words have been expended on the piece of crap film. What manner of intellect is it that chooses to exercise that, which is held by some to be of a superior and sharper nature than most, intellect on a piece of crap film. Is the intellect a piece of crap for wasting itself on a piece of crap or is the piece of crap not really a piece of crap? Perhaps neither is a piece of crap and perhaps both are.

 

[Aepervius]

mind you crow, you belong to the crowd which discuss the piece of crap film, so any conclusion you might come with your above paragraph, would apply to you too.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Actually the film is not a piece of crap .. It was cleverly contrived, and suits it's purpose..
The suit is a piece of crap though; and a fine suit for the Emperor it is ...

But as I have said before: Who's to say a real life Bigfoot doesn't look like a piece of crap suit ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

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


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

The subject of the P&T video doesn't compare to Patty with regards to 'clarity of view', 'body contour', 'apparant muscle movement', and measurable body proportions.

It's completely irrelevant to any analysis of the Patterson Film subject.

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

When you quoted me, Astro, you left out the first statement I made....

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.

By "it" I was refering to the back of Patty's leg....not the entire "suit".

You don't need a check to stuff a little padding inside of your pant-leg, to replicate what we see on the back of Patty's leg.

BTW, we are still waiting for one small piece of evidence that can be verified as coming from a bigfoot monster.

I'm still waiting for proof of Bigfoot's existence, too.

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

I don't have an explanation for why it extends backward. But it doesn't present a problem for me. As far as I'm concerned, it could be a real feature of a real animal.

 

[Drewbot]

Sweaty, can you explain why a bipedal primate, would have an underdeveloped Achilles tendon? (which is obvious from the photo of block foot). It is a fact that quadrupedal apes have an underdeveloped achilles tendon, but why would a Biped?

 

[SweatyYeti]

No, Drewbot, I can't explain that.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The subject of the P&T video doesn't compare to Patty with regards to 'clarity of view', 'body contour', 'apparant muscle movement', and measurable body proportions.

However, you miss the point. I had stated:

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

The suit looked pretty poor IMO but it still fooled because it was filmed in a way that it looked "real enough". Like I said, it proved my statement was correct. That if you have a poor suit, just film it from a distance and in a manner that makes it dififcult to see the flaws.

By "it" I was refering to the back of Patty's leg....not the entire "suit".

You don't need a check to stuff a little padding inside of your pant-leg, to replicate what we see on the back of Patty's leg.

Ahhh..but I do need a check to get a film camera and film, materials, and that ticket to California so I can film it under the same conditions. So, I am still waiting for your check so I can replicate the back of Aunt Bunny's leg if you want so desperately to have someone replicate it for you. Until you provide the check, I will wait to replicate the matter.

I'm still waiting for proof of Bigfoot's existence, too.

Is that it? Waiting? Why not "try" to find bigfoot yourself? By the way you post, you are very confident (100%?) that it is not a suit and therefore bigfoot must exist. Or is your confidence shaken (<50%) and it is not worth your time and money to go find bigfoot? Surely, a bright fellow like yourself could find bigfoot in a few weeks.

I don't have an explanation for why it extends backward. But it doesn't present a problem for me. As far as I'm concerned, it could be a real feature of a real animal.

Translation: I am going to ignore the distinct possibility that it is part of a suit and suggest that "aunt bunny" is some sort of evolutionary freak.

Apparently, you did not read the link I gave you which describes why this is not what one would expect in a primate (from a real expert). Maybe you just ignored it, as always.

 

[kitakaze]

Piece of crap film? Did I read that correctly? Piece of crap film? I need to be sure that those are the words that were used to define the PGF in a recent post. Well what does it say about either end of the equation that how many thousands of words have been expended on the piece of crap film. What manner of intellect is it that chooses to exercise that, which is held by some to be of a superior and sharper nature than most, intellect on a piece of crap film. Is the intellect a piece of crap for wasting itself on a piece of crap or is the piece of crap not really a piece of crap? Perhaps neither is a piece of crap and perhaps both are.

I don't really have any particular response to your post, log, other than to congratulate you on what I believe may be your first post without horror spelling.

 

[Crowlogic]

mind you crow, you belong to the crowd which discuss the piece of crap film, so any conclusion you might come with your above paragraph, would apply to you too.

And I put myself in the front row that I am one who discusses this film. However I consider the film an intrigue and as such it holds a rank that carries for me a little more esteem than that of being a piece of crap.

 

[Crowlogic]

I don't really have any particular response to your post, log, other than to congratulate you on what I believe may be your first post without horror spelling.

Although there's at least one piece of crap intellect it seems wasting itself on discussing what it states is a piece of crap film.

 

[xblade]

Just to chime in here, last night I saw a "Messin' With Sasquatch" commercial that I hadn't seen before. In it, sasquatch was on his knees drinking from a pond/stream. Guess what immediately caught my eye? A horizontal line across his back(of the diaper/padding?) that looked just like the line across Patty's back. It's not quite as prominent as Patty's, but you can't miss it if you're familiar with the Patty film, as most here are. I wasn't even looking for it, yet it was so obvious.

Anyway, continue on...

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

However, you miss the point. I had stated:

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

The suit looked pretty poor IMO but it still fooled because it was filmed in a way that it looked "real enough".

The suit looked pretty poor??????

It looks like NOTHING, Astro.......absolutely NOTHING, at all.

I've tried to have an intelligent conversation with you about the Patterson Film....but you're clearly not interested in having one.

The Sonoma Video has absolutely NOTHING to do with any analysis of the PG Film, or anything to do with the analysis of any Bigfoot evidence, in general.

The suit in the video has no detectable body contour, no apparant muscle movement, no measurable body proportions, and no detail, whatsoever.
It is a piece of .............NOTHING.

As a result, you have proved NOTHING, Astro.


If anybody 'believed' the video may have shown a real live Bigfoot, they believed it purely out of desire for it to be so, and NOT because of any specific analysis of the subject.
If you think someone actually did do some analysis of it...please post a link to it. I'd love to see it.

The only positive response I saw about it on the BFF was from Bill Green....who likes every Bigfoot video out there...and then some...

hi everyone this is a very interesting filmfootage of a sasquatch. the area looks great habitat for sasquatch. i think some researchers here should call or email the man who took the footage. it looks authentic to me

The Sonoma Video didn't "pass scrutiny"....because there is NOTHING in it to scrutinize, or analyse.

The ONLY thing that video could pass is GAS... It's 100% pure ----.



When I talked about Patty being ambiguous, I was refering to 'ambiguous with detail'....not an 'ambiguous Blobsquatch'.

Alleged Bigfoot subjects in videos can certainly be ambiguous when they're so far away that there are no, or very few, discernable details....like in the Manitoba Video....or the Memorial Day Video.
But they're not relevant to what I was talking about.

With the Patterson subject....Patty is ambiguous when seen up close....in full view, from head to toe, from 3 sides, for an extended length of time, with visible details such as distinct body contour, apparant muscle movement, finger and toe movement, and measurable body proportions.


The "point" you proved, Astro.....is pointless.
And so is discussing the evidence with you, since you clearly have no clue as to what I've been talking about for the last week or two.

I simply don't have the time available to me to waste taking your little bus rides into downtown Idiotville anymore, Astro.

Like I said, it proved my statement was correct.

That if you have a poor suit, just film it from a distance and in a manner that makes it dififcult to see the flaws.

 

[xblade]

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


As I've stated in the past....the Robo-Skeptics here at Jref (the home of "Critical Thinkers" ) have but ONE thing to say concerning the evidence for Bigfoot's existence....

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

What else needs to be said?

6 billion people on this planet, with alleged bigfoot sightings in 49 of 50 states, and on 6 of 7 continents, yet no one can come up with a body, live or dead, no bone, hair, blood, scat, skin, teeth etc. Heck, no one can even come up with a clear picture or video.

Seriously, is a different response even necessary? Anything else is just unnecessary noise. At what point do we defer to common sense? I suppose never, if you're a believer.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I've tried to have an intelligent conversation with you about the Patterson Film....but you're clearly not interested in having one.

Throwing up the white flag SY? So far I have answered just about every question you offerred. You pick and choose and then ignore all the inconvenient facts I point out. It is almost as if you are afraid to even engage in discussing items. For instance, I made the statement that a crappy suit filmed under the right conditions can pass scrutiny. You laughed at that suggestion. Guess what? Penn and Teller used a comical suit and hooked a couple of bigfoot proponents. Therefore, it is possible.

The Sonoma Video has absolutely NOTHING to do with any analysis of the PG Film, or anything to do with the analysis of any Bigfoot evidence, in general.

I never stated it did. However, you were the one that scoffed at the idea of a poor suit filmed under the right conditions could fool people.

As a result, you have proved NOTHING, Astro.

Correction: I proved that you were wrong and I was right. You stated such a suit could not pass scrutiny. In this case, it did for at least a few bigfoot proponents. Had Penn and Teller not revealed the hoax, my guess is it would still be accepted by some today as proof of bigfoot.

If you think someone actually did do some analysis of it...please post a link to it. I'd love to see it.

If they did, they would have removed it once it was revealed as a hoax. Maybe the drew some crayon lines and compared it to Bob H to prove it wasn't him.

The Sonoma Video didn't "pass scrutiny"....because there is NOTHING in it to scrutinize, or analyse.

Come on sweaty. You claim you analyze things but when I ask for some measurements you claim you don't do "numbers". In other words, you analyze things by looking at it subjectively. Your continued focus on "apparent muscles" is typical of a subjective observations. I measure pixels and give approximate sizes that indicate there is nothing unusual about arm lengths and height of the subject and you ignore them. When I demonstrated that your "comparison" images of bob and "aunt bunny" were invalid, you ignored that argument as well. Seems to me that you don't analyze anything. It is all based on your "will to believe" SY. You can't even answer the simple question of how convinced you are that this is a real bigfoot in the film. Talk about lacking conviction.

I simply don't have the time available to me to waste taking your little bus rides into downtown Idiotville anymore, Astro.

Hmmm....looks like you have been on that busride long before I came into this discussion. When you really want to analyze things and not draw with crayons, feel free to come back with real data (i.e. measurements that can be quantified) and talk to the big kids. Meanwhile, you can stay on the short bus for now.

Does this mean you won't be sending me a check to reproduce Aunt Bunny for you? I was so looking forward to seeing northern California in October.

 

[GT/CS]

Sorry, Drew; I forgot to post this for you.

Hey Sweaty, #27!!!

 

[Drewbot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY_J_4EnGX8

Yep, I saw the thigh seam too. It is obviously standard for even the most expensive gorilla/sasquatch suit. It starts around the 10 second mark. It works better if you TIVO it and pause it. Because this clip is not too clear.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Astro wrote:

You can't even answer the simple question of how convinced you are that this is a real bigfoot in the film.

I think, based on analysis of several different pieces of evidence within the film, that Patty is most likely a real, live Bigfoot.
I don't have a number to put on it....but I think the evidence indicates a very high probability of that being the case.



As a final note to this "discussion"......

However, you were the one that scoffed at the idea of a poor suit filmed under the right conditions could fool people.

That's not correct....I wasn't talking about a man-in-a-suit simply "fooling people"....because, it's not simply about what people "believe".
I was talking about a suit being able to be ambiguous after being analysed. (For a suit, or subject, to be analysed....you need discernable details.)

Again...from my post last night...

The suit in the P&T video has no detectable body contour, no apparant muscle movement, no measurable body proportions, and no detail, whatsoever.
It is a piece of .............NOTHING.

The Sonoma Video didn't "pass scrutiny"....because there is NOTHING in it to scrutinize, or analyse.

I "scoffed" at your theory, that......"a crappy suit, filmed under crappy conditions could look real enough and pass scrutiny"....because I have been talking about the analysis of specific details within a suit, or potential suit.

A video of a suit without any details (a blobsquatch) has absolutely nothing to do with what I've been talking about.


As a result....I have no reason to continue discussing the matter with you, Astro, since you have had absolutely NO clue as to what it was we were discussing, all along. You are....in a word.....clueless.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I think, based on analysis of several different pieces of evidence within the film, that Patty is most likely a real, live Bigfoot. I don't have a number to put on it....but I think the evidence indicates a very high probability of that being the case.

You mean like ambiguous and vague terms like "body contour" and "apparent muscle movement"? Sounds like you are "parroting" the bigfoot party line and not really bringing anything new to the discussion. When it comes to "evidence" and real analysis, you fail miserably. When you tried to show that the arms were too long and I demonstrated this was not the case, you ran away and refused to discuss it.
What you are really doing is cherry picking the evidence that best suits what you want to believe and ignoring the evidence that suggests that it is a guy in a suit.

As a result....I have no reason to continue discussing the matter with you, Astro, since you have had absolutely NO clue as to what it was we were discussing, all along. You are....in a word.....clueless.

The word "clueless" is demonstrated by you continued running away from any evidence that suggests it is a guy in a suit. Your analysis is nothing of the sort. You use a lot of big words like "body contour" but this is all mumbo-jumbo because you can not back up any claim you have made with real hard data that can be actually discussed. To me that is the definition of "clueless". Feel free to use your subjective and myopic observations but try backing it up with real data.

BTW, when can I expect my check to reproduce "aunt bunny" on film?

 

[SweatyYeti]

What else needs to be said?

6 billion people on this planet, with alleged bigfoot sightings in 49 of 50 states, and on 6 of 7 continents, yet no one can come up with a body, live or dead, no bone, hair, blood, scat, skin, teeth etc. Heck, no one can even come up with a clear picture or video.

Sorry to disappoint all you closed-minded skeptics......but here's a little hair for you...

The 54-year-old primate expert said that he and his Oxford Brookes University colleagues had ruled out the possibility of the hairs coming from animals known to roam the area, including black bears, macaque monkeys, dogs and wild boar.

'The hairs are complete with the cuticle, and between 3.3cm (1.3in) and 4.4cm (1.7in) long and thick and wiry and curved,' he said.

'We haven't found a match with the most likely contenders,' he said. 'But there is a resemblance with the hairs brought back by Sir Edmund Hillary. There is the exciting prospect that these could turn out to be something very dramatic.'

Link:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/scien...le-hair-FINALLY-prove-Yeti-really-exists.html

Seriously, is a different response even necessary? (Other than "Where's the proof ?")
Anything else is just unnecessary noise. At what point do we defer to common sense? I suppose never, if you're a believer.

Apparantly you have no idea what the purpose of a Bigfoot discussion board (or thread) is, xblade.

There are only 3 basic things to debate concerning Bigfoot's existence....

1) Is Bigfoot's existence even possible?

2) Is Bigfoot's existence likely?

3) Is Bigfoot's existence proven?


There is nothing else.....and, since we all (except for the one or two odd morons that exist in every group of people) agree that Bigfoot's existence is within the realm of possibility...and since we all agree that it has yet to be conclusively, and officially proven, ....the ONLY thing left to discuss and debate is the likelihood of Bigfoot's existence.

And, since "degrees of likelihood", or 'probability', just happen to be the units of measurement of any piece of "evidence".......the only meaningful thing to do in these threads is to analyse and weigh the evidence.

At this point in time, it's all about probabilities. The two "extremes" are already agreed upon.

Asking "Where's the proof" is a nice thing to do, on occasion, but it's not what this thread exists for.

 

[Crowlogic]

Although this if semi off topic I'd like to mention this thread. Speaks for itself.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=23095