Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Bill Munns]

Wow!

15,000 posts and still people are quarreling over petty things instead of issues of substance.

Can't we at least establish some kind of perspective on this film and agree on some foundation issues so the debate can focus on real issues of contention, instead of slinging phrases like "piece of crap film" or the like into page upon page of pointless childish bickering?

My suggestions for some foundation issues we should be able to sign off on:

1. Regardless of your perception of the PG film, one essential fact about it is undeniable. It represents the most detailed and lengthy filmed study of either a suspected cryptid primate or a human in suit hoaxing an event. It has a level of detail in the imagery that allows debate on whether fingers bend or a wrist turns, enough detail to discuss specific lines of changes in apparent fur texture on specified parts of the body and debate whether any given line is a natural fur anomaly or a suit flaw. No other film or video of a "Bigfoot" (in quotes to mean real or fake, allowing both prospects) is as clear, as long, as detailed in image data, and has been subjected to as much examination and debate, as this film.

2. The fact that it is on film, instead of video, represents a level of potential image detail for analysis beyond any videotaped sighting done more recently. In that sense, it is in a class by itself, as compared to the average YouTube video blobsquatch.

3. It represents a unique instance where there is sufficient footage, in bright sunlight, of a figure in consistent walking motion, to analyze issues of either real musculature or suit structure components.

4. Issues showing irregularities in the fur patterns of living creatures have as much relevance to this discussion as showing irregularities in known fur suits, because the figure in the film does have irregularities in its fur patterns. So as much as those advocating a suit may show stills from other known suits and point out similar shadows or apparent padding structures as compared to what's seen in the film, persons may reasonably show pictures of real animals and point out irregularities in their fur patterns as compared to what's seem in the film. Both comparisons should be respectfully evaluated in relation to the film. And both, seen and studied in motion, are superior to studies of still frames alone.

5. If it was "an obvious fake", the issue should have been settled 39 years ago (within the first year of its existence and examination). The fact that it wasn't means that there is nothing "obvious" about the film or the issue of real or hoaxed.

6. The number of people who are actually open-minded as to any actual final determination are few and far between, and most people who discuss it seem to have fully made up their mind. As such, they tend to argue only for their conclusion on virtually any point of contention, making the majority of arguments essentially worthless as far as actually resolving the individual points of dispute (or the big question, real or fake). And on both sides of the fence, they just end up embarrassing the whole discussion with petty verbal tit-for-tat bantering. More understanding, and less arguing, might benefit everyone.

7. Any discussion forum is made great or petty by the quality of thought (or lack of same) the posting participants contribute. This discussion could be great, factual, well reasoned, and truly a fine learning experience for those who might read and participate. As it stands now, it isn't. I would love to see it become great, and see the fine minds who view and post actually raise this topic up to an enlightening and educational discussion on the topic. But I'm simply one voice, and far more participants would have to share that vision for that vision to prevail.

So that's my suggestion, as we inch past the 15,000 post mark.

Bill Munns

 

[kitakaze]

Kit you can rant and rave and bash and boom all you want. But the photos show suit like details appearing on living animals. There's nothing you can do about that. Interesting that you decided to take this thing on as if it had been afront to you personally. It wasn't but I do take a certain amount of pleasure in the event that it did. But let it be known that a blanket statements such as real live animals wouldn't show things like waist bands and hip lines are not an accurate statement. Sorry if it makes the task of suit bashing a little harder. I understand that with you its not the pleasure of the suit bash its just the pleasure of the bash itself. I could also post another gorilla photo with a wristband detail but hey this one is fun enough, for now.

It's also typical of a Bigfoot enthusiast to insinuate an emotional element to the statements of someone skeptical when there simply is no such element. For any Bigfoot enthusiasts out there looking for tips don't forget to use words like 'bash' and 'rant' and 'rave'. 'Rabid' is great, too. Implying that the skeptic is taking your posts personally is classic. People will be thinking "Wow, that nasty skeptic is really flying off the handle. I bet they have anger issues. I don't think I'll be listening to any the nonsense they have to say today, thank you."

Unfortunately, log, I simply asked for an example of skeptics here taking details as shown in the image you posted and citing them as evidence for a hoax. I never said that details in your image are best or only explained by suits. There's nothing I can do about it? *yawn* I feel so powerless, I'm drowning in a deluge of Footer logic.

Meanwhile, maybe you can just go ahead and show us the ones making these blanket statements you mention. Show us how the image you posted so cleverly takes us to task. I'm sure you realize images like the one GT/CS often posts showing the weird bulge in Patty's wrist doesn't qualify as what you're talking about. Does your gorilla wrist image make GT/CS look silly? What I'm seeing is a tired example of a Bigfoot fan doing anything but when they are asked to validate their statements.

 

[kitakaze]

...

So that's my suggestion, as we inch past the 15,000 post mark.

Bill Munns

Bill, you have such a way with words. You really know how to get through to us here with posts like the above which make me think of words like 'humble' and 'inspirational'. It's like having Deepak Chopra talk to you about Bigfoot.

Yes, I see it now. We need to focus on the real issues of the PGF and not fetter ourselves with petty quibbles that prevent people understanding its complexities as you do. Its goofy status in pop culture as that blurry video of the dude in the suit must be addressed. People must be educated and someone needs to step up to the task. We need to elevate the PGF because people, what if we for more than 40 years now have been punting around what could possibly be the evidence we need in the quest for the reality if Bigfoot? We need to disregard all the gob-smackingly blatant signs of hoax and get some funding together and do some tests. People, Mr. Munns is ready, willing, and waiting to do these tests. The PGF needs it's renaissance man. Sasquatch evidence will be our reward and there's no best before date on that, right? I think this may in fact lead us to a better understanding for why there is absolutely not a single shred of reliable evidence for these 8ft hairy bipedal man-like monsters wandering all over our continent. We need to understand that social construct just doesn't cut it. All those people can't be lying, mistaken, or crazy, right?

Bigfoot enthusiasts, don't let Bigfoot's absence get you down. Keep your eyes on the prize. We call her Patty.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Kit you can rant and rave and bash and boom all you want. But the photos show suit like details appearing on living animals.

On animals, that we know exist ...

Go figure...

 

[GT/CS]

Snip........I could also post another gorilla photo with a wristband detail but hey this one is fun enough, for now.

Please post one for I would love to see it!

Crow, don't you understand that we are looking for evidence and if you have a photo of a wrist band similar to the one on Patty that would be evidence worth discussing. You tend to belittle us about how we are wasting our time and how we go on and on about nothing but then you won't even post something of substance for us to analyze and discuss???

So let's see it. Finally something from a believer that will shoot down a skeptic!!! Please don't doctor the photo, though.

Thank you

 

[LTC8K6]

On animals, that we know exist ...

Go figure...

You're supposed to fire across the bow, not into the head!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Bill Munns wrote:

7. Any discussion forum is made great or petty by the quality of thought (or lack of same) the posting participants contribute. This discussion could be great, factual, well reasoned, and truly a fine learning experience for those who might read and participate. As it stands now, it isn't.

Bill....it ain't happenin' here....."quality of thought"...weighing the evidence, that is.


In response to your post, we got this deep, thoughtful insight from "Randi's Heroes"....

Diogenes:

On animals, that we know exist
(Translation: "Where's the proof...got a body?")

LTC8K6:

On animals, that we know exist ...

Go figure...

You're supposed to fire across the bow, not into the head!
(Translation: Ha Ha Ha....they don't have proof!)

kitakaze:

there is absolutely not a single shred of reliable evidence (proof) for these 8ft hairy bipedal man-like monsters

GT/CS:

Crow, don't you understand that we are looking for evidence (proof, actually.)

In actual fact....Randi's Heroes are looking for proof of Bigfoot's existence......and until they get it, there will be no thoughtful weighing of the evidence here, on Jref.
Instead, it'll always be the one, simple thought......."Where's the proof....got a body?"

....as was just very nicely demonstrated.

 

[Astrophotographer]

and until they get it, there will be no thoughtful weighing of the evidence here, on Jref.

LOL, this from a person who "doesn't do numbers" and prefers to compare somebody outside a suit with "Aunt bunny" than somebody inside a suit. When said comparisons are shown to be flawed, it is the old Monty Python trick of "run away". Yep, that is "thoughtful weighing of the evidence". When you are ready to put away your crayons, then feel free to "thoughtfully weigh the evidence" and present your arguments. Meanwhile, you can cry and hand wave all you want but you have yet to provide one scrap of evidence to suggest it is NOT a guy in a suit. As always, until you can demonstrate that it is not a guy in a suit or that "bigfoot" really exists (like producing a body), then your "evidence" will fail to convince skeptics or anybody outside the bigfoot community.

 

[Crowlogic]

Rather than requote your entire last rant on the photos I'll simply focus on the line words "clevery posted." Its a telling statement. You've been trummped. Lil ol' me dished out a dose of undeniable real world "piece of crap suit details" showing on a real live animal. Rubs you the wrong way, takes a little bit of the license out of the smuggness does it not.

Forget for a moment that what my photo means that an even sharper eye and critical thought process is required with some of this stuff.

 

[Crowlogic]

On animals, that we know exist ...

Go figure...

Greg you're so right on animals we know to exist. Now do I need to point you in the direction of the post where it was said that "no primate has buldges on the backs of the claves like shown on Patty." That poster used references to real live animals. Known animals if you will. We use references to know animals and materials constantly when discussing the PGF. Its is the only way to discuss this thing.

 

[Crowlogic]

Please post one for I would love to see it!

Crow, don't you understand that we are looking for evidence and if you have a photo of a wrist band similar to the one on Patty that would be evidence worth discussing. You tend to belittle us about how we are wasting our time and how we go on and on about nothing but then you won't even post something of substance for us to analyze and discuss???

So let's see it. Finally something from a believer that will shoot down a skeptic!!! Please don't doctor the photo, though.

Thank you

I don't post anything as a believer. I post contrary elements to remind us that things are a lot more grey than black and white. However if you simply google gorilla photos it'll take you to the same pages where I found the photos I did. I incidently don't see the so called wrist band in the PGF.

 

[Correa Neto]

Every now and then the request for people being more "open-minded" appears...

What exactly does it means?
Open to the possibility that Patty may be a real animal?
Heck, everibody here is, but there's a big problem- there are no reliable pieces of evidence able to support this and the film has a fishy background. So, we are left with the "fake" option. The odds of PGF being a fake, in light of what we present know, are very low. Only realiable evidences can change this position. As soon as they are produced, we will change our view.

What can change my position?
- A bigfoot specimen looking like Patty
- New footage or stills with better quality and with a solid background, showing a Patty-like animal

In the absence of the above, to attribute a high probablity (note that I am talking only in qualitative terms) of Patty being the real deal, or "to keep an open mind" and being undecided seems to me as wishfull thinking and/or emotional attachment to the subject.

 

[GT/CS]

I don't post anything as a believer. I post contrary elements to remind us that things are a lot more grey than black and white. However if you simply google gorilla photos it'll take you to the same pages where I found the photos I did. I incidently don't see the so called wrist band in the PGF.

"you can Google it yourself"

"I don't see the wrist band in the PGF"

Nice. So you don't have the photos you said you can produce. So you don't have any evidence.

 

[Crowlogic]

"you can Google it yourself"

"I don't see the wrist band in the PGF"

Nice. So you don't have the photos you said you can produce. So you don't have any evidence.

I didn't say that I don't have said photo. I did say that you can google the same sources yourself. Did you google it? and if so why not? Why not give yourself the education. Digging for dirt/evidence seems to be a hot pursuit around here.
But I did say that I don't see the so called wrist band in the PGF. Why don't you or one of the other usual suspects post a photo of the PGF wristband with arrows indicating its position. I'm so glad that you've appointed yourself as the latest authority on what kinds of photos members of this forum may or may not have.

 

[kitakaze]

Rather than requote your entire last rant on the photos I'll simply focus on the line words "clevery posted." Its a telling statement. You've been trummped. Lil ol' me dished out a dose of undeniable real world "piece of crap suit details" showing on a real live animal. Rubs you the wrong way, takes a little bit of the license out of the smuggness does it not.

Forget for a moment that what my photo means that an even sharper eye and critical thought process is required with some of this stuff.

log, where to start?

1) Partial quoting or at the very least using the handle of the poster you are addressing greatly helps the reader in discerning to whom you are speaking, particularily when the post you are responding to was six posts before.

2) The horror spelling is creeping back but of more concern is the sentence structure and coherence of your posts are starting to circle the bowl again.

3) Also key if you would like to make progress towards having intelligible exchanges with people is reading comprehension. Let me give you an example. You read a sentence of mine and respond saying:

Rather than requote your entire last rant on the photos I'll simply focus on the line words "clevery posted." Its a telling statement. You've been trummped.

It's interesting because if you go back and look at what I posted, and I'll bold the important part to illustrate the disconnect, it doesn't say quite what you think it says. Here, have a boo:

Show us how the image you posted so cleverly takes us to task.

You see, log, you make a garbled post thinking you're sticking it to the man and it comes out Bobcat Goldthwait playing Mad Libs. Once again, I'm asking you for an example of how the image you posted is a fair representation of arguments commonly and mistakenly made by skeptics at this forum. A very simple and effective method of doing this is by reposting the post of member or members who made such a statement. This takes only the most rudimentary use of the search function that is common to most internet forums.

Before you do that let me reiterate my position. Members here have often said that particular bulges, folds, body parts are not consistent with that of a living animal. Colour variations as shown in the image you posted are not representative of those views IMO. Repeated requests to have you show that it is in fact representative of what many skeptics here say has been met with evasion and excuses. This is not hopeful for the case that you were making.

 

[kitakaze]

In actual fact....Randi's Heroes are looking for proof of Bigfoot's existence......and until they get it, there will be no thoughtful weighing of the evidence here, on Jref.
Instead, it'll always be the one, simple thought......."Where's the proof....got a body?"

....as was just very nicely demonstrated.

Whatever this one gets coded it's personally one of the most tiresome IMO. Sweaty willfully tries to create for the reader the impression that there has not countless times been made a crystal clear distinction between what constitutes reliable evidence and proof.

I'll be a sport and spot Sweaty and state for the sake of argument that it is boggling that there is neither for Bigfoot as it is variously described.

 

[Crowlogic]

Well Kit The case I was making was that real, living and known animals can posess features that could in certain circumstances be inturrpurated as details that could imply as details implicating a suit or costume. If you don't get it then that's too bad. Now then you seem to have gotten to worrying about my spelling no need to show us how anal you are. My spelling has gotten me through a quite comfortable existence and I've every reason to believe it will continue to do so.

So I'll ask you the question just in case you haven't gotten it. Does not the gorillia photo I posted possess details that are frequently pointed out as indications of suits and costumes especially Bigfoot suits and costumes?

 

[LTC8K6]

(Translation: Ha Ha Ha....they don't have proof!)

What would be proof, Sweaty? You laugh and want proof, so what would that be?

What are some things you would need to see in the PGF or on Patty that would convince you that the PGF is fake?

For example, I think you and I would agree that if a zipper could be seen, that would probably do it.

Or if we could see Roger creating the exact tracks we see in the Laverty photos, that would probably do it.

Keeping in mind that with the quality and res of the PGF copies we have available to us, a zipper might well not be visible...

Also keeping in mind that we do not have the "second roll" and we don't know if we have all of the first roll...

Finding the suit would have to do it, I'd think.

Note: I am not going to select any of your answers, assuming you bother, and then claim that I see same in the PGF. I am just wondering what would convince you.

You may naturally then wonder what would convince me that Patty is real.

Honestly, not much could at this point. A body of the same type creature would, of course increase the credibility of the PGF. Another video or picture of the same type creature would certainly add a lot of credibility to Patty. I think that it's still entirely possible that the original PGF roll and the original second roll might answer the question once and for all.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

5. If it was "an obvious fake", the issue should have been settled 39 years ago (within the first year of its existence and examination). The fact that it wasn't means that there is nothing "obvious" about the film or the issue of real or hoaxed.

Although I can see the point you're trying to make, I must disagree with some of your logic here. Before I begin, I should note that I've always been of the opinion that the subject of the film is "just there," with nothing immediately leaping out at me of being realistic or being fake.

Anyway, all an obvious fake needs to stand the test of time is for some people to fall for it and support it over the years. The Billy Meier hoaxes and Gulf Breeze UFO incident are excellent examples of this in action. This is why, even after proving that an athlete was taller and faster than the subject of the Memorial Day footage, the people involved in SASQUATCH: LEGEND MEETS SCIENCE tried to spin it as if they had proven the subject outperformed a human. Perhaps that's why the audio track for the video, which had people openly ridiculing the subject, was removed for the program.

If you go here, you'll see people making excuses for problems with the circumstances surrounding the film. I highly doubt they're the first to do that sort of thing and I think this sort of behavior is exactly what's kept the film "alive" for so long. Well, that, and a lack of questioning regarding the events surrounding the film. By the way, does anyone here know if the comments regarding the development time for Kodachrome film at that link are correct or not?

But, since you want to discuss what's on the film, I have something special for you. It's a semi-profile shot of the Star Trek mask Dfoot suspects was used for the Patty suit.

On a lighter note, here's a segment from the British comedy series THE GOODIES that spoofs the PGF. I should also note that part 1 of this episode parodies ARTHUR C. CLARKE'S MYSTERIOUS WORLD and part 3 parodies SASQUATCH: THE LEGEND OF BIGFOOT.

 

[Bill Munns]

AAM:

"Originally Posted by Bill Munns
5. If it was "an obvious fake", the issue should have been settled 39 years ago (within the first year of its existence and examination). The fact that it wasn't means that there is nothing "obvious" about the film or the issue of real or hoaxed. "

"Although I can see the point you're trying to make, I must disagree with some of your logic here. Before I begin, I should note that I've always been of the opinion that the subject of the film is "just there," with nothing immediately leaping out at me of being realistic or being fake. "

I would actually agree with you, in your statement that " with nothing immediately leaping out at me of being realistic or being fake." which is why I think people who casually call it "an obvious fake" are actually more intent on closing the discussion with an intimidating bluff, than intent on reasoning it through.

"Anyway, all an obvious fake needs to stand the test of time is for some people to fall for it and support it over the years. "

I would agree with you here, in general, but the PG Film has been subjected to analysis by so many people of so many varied levels of expertise and knowledgable disciplines, over 40 years, that the fact that the debate is still raging on suggests to me this is an exception to your above generalized remark.

"By the way, does anyone here know if the comments regarding the development time for Kodachrome film at that link are correct or not?"

The issue of Kokachrome development is clearly a significant issue in the debate. It definitely needs further research and study.

"But, since you want to discuss what's on the film, I have something special for you. It's a semi-profile shot of the Star Trek mask Dfoot suspects was used for the Patty suit. "

Thanks for this. Wish we had a higher resolution version. Maybe one will turn up. Would be helpful.

Bill