Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

As for me when I gaze into Pattie's fuzzy over zoomed grill I see this...

Which IMHO looks quite a bit closer to the Don Post Mask....errr.....color seperation version. Note the large white area that looks like a huge honker and the fairly defined lip area...but that's neither here nor there the important thing here is...

This one is a bit clearer.

It looks like a chimp showing compressed lip expression, too. Maybe the chimp is wearing a Don Post mask.

 

[Mad Hom]

Bigfoot Nation apparently doesn't even agree on what Patty actually looks like do they?

QUOTE]

Is there an agreement on an "accurate" appearance by the members of the opposing nation?

Yes we are all in agreement that it "appears" to be far to blurry to make out anything along the lines of actual facial features...Bigfoot Nation's wishful thinking and rampant pardolia notwithstanding.

 

[tyr_13]

Or maybe you aren't even pointing at his lips? How could you possibly claim to tell that from a still of that quality?

 

[mangler]

Astro,

"It was a copy of the original," said Houck."

This is an excellent find. Not being allowed to examine the master would carry considerable weight in a professionals decision as to whether the film was worthy of additional/intense analysis.

This fact precisely illustrates a considerable amount of blind faith in those that originally viewed the film and gave it a thumbs-up, if in fact they also viewed a first generation master copy. I have to admit that I’m starting to get the impression that no analysis was ever preformed on the master.

Again, great find.


m

 

[kitakaze]

And we all know how important realism is in Bigfoot research...

Buwahahaha! Oh, that's precious. I haven't seen her since the first time I read Krantz. What's sad is when he writes "what is it?" it's not a rhetorical question.

Ohhhh... feeling flustered... confidence in trusted Bigfoot expert faultering... need voice of reason... Meldrum... where's Meldrum?...

And now let's check in with anthropologist, Bigfoot enthusiast, and Mormon scholar, D.Jeffery Meldrum!:

DNA samples taken from native tribes in south, central and north America have shown that their principal ancestors were from northeast Asia, not Israel — a fact conceded by both sides in the debate.

“There is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion and that conclusion is that the Book of Mormon is not accurate historically,” says Murphy.

Meldrum, who is working with Stephens on two books about the topic, acknowledges that DNA research does not corroborate the Book of Mormon’s claim to be a historical record.

“But that’s very different from drawing the conclusion that the DNA evidence refutes the Book of Mormon,” says Meldrum.

Lehi’s descendants could have been a small group in a limited area whose genetics were swamped by the huge gene pool of other ancient Americans, he says.

Their genetics also could have been wiped out along with the tens of millions of natives who died when Europeans introduced disease in the New World, Meldrum says.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/3988/symposiums-to-look-at-whether-dna-refutes-book-of-mormon

WTF? Book of Mormon!? According to the Church of Latter Day Saints the Book of Mormon is a record of the American Indian descendants of Lehi, a Hebrew who migrated with his family to the New World in about 600 B.C.. That's just kooky. Ah-h-h... my Meldrum... not my Meldrum. You're just kidding, right? Having a laugh? Ha ha ha kidder... OK, ket's have the good stuff. Intermountain West, calcaneal tendons, midtarsal breaks, anything. Just cut it with the Mormon funny stuff.

We propose that Book of Mormon is the account of a small group of people who lived on the American continent, interacting to some degree with the indigenous population but relatively isolated from the general historical events occurring elsewhere in the Americas" (Ibid., p.44).

http://www.mrm.org/topics/book-mormon/dna-and-book-mormon-record

That's it! TAPS forum, here I come, baby. EVPs and science for me!

That's right, Bigfoot fans. Don't forget on your strive for legitimacy quest, Jeff Meldrum - defender of Bigfoot and the historical veracity of the Book of Mormon. Enjoy.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

If you ask me one looks like a Don Post Studios Mask (Dfoot posted a shot of a mask thirty leven hundred pages ago that was the spitting image of this color seperation business...which of course I can't find..D';oh!?!?)

I think you mean the one that Dfoot made using parts of Don Post masks (and lips from a Wookiee mask that acted as replacements for the lips from a Don Post caveman mask). Here are some pictures of it.

Speaking of costumes, I noticed Bill Munns' latest bit of analysis over at the BFF (post 167) and had a few questions/comments:

Does the costume pictured here have the same "unusually short lower leg" issue? If you want to see more of it in action, just go here. Maybe William Parcher can repost that Youtube video that had behind-the-scenes footage from the Sonoma hoax for further comparison.

It's been previously noted here how the position of one's arm while swinging can great the illusion of greater length:

Here, Dfoot demonstrates how the position of one's arm during a "swing" can create the illusion of greater/shorter length.

Here's a gloved version of Dfoot's "notice the arms" comparison, which I feel matches up better with the BBC publicity photo.

Dfoot also demonstrated that a person doesn't have to have their hands fully into a glove in order to move the fingers/create the illusion of greater length.

We've also found examples of people with arms positioned similar to Patty's (0:46-0:48, mildly NSFW).

Judging from the frames you used, you have indeed used some of the frames where that seems to be an issue.

While I applaud you for allowing for more padding than some would for a Bigfoot costume, I think it's quite possible for even more padding to have been involved, especially in the shoulder region. I think these links emphasize my point nicely.

I was wondering, would the use of nonconsecutive frames create any potential problems with the accuracy of proportion estimations?

Also, did your study factor in the possibility that the wearer's feet didn't touch the bottom of the fake Bigfoot feet (similar to how a person's foot doesn't touch the bottom of a shoe)?

I'm sure others will chime in with questions and comments on the matter as well.

 

[Crowlogic]

When the idea that the face is too blurry to show any detail is raised the so called glint of light off of Bob H's false eye stuck in mask for realism should be included in the none observable wishful thinking details too.

 

[Bill Munns]

AMM:

As always, nice to hear your ideas and thoughts.

Regarding Dfoot's various activities, let me just say that, with all due respect for his determination and his research work, his methodology of presentation and the way he structures his arguments is simply so different from mine that trying to reconsile his arguments with mine is an "apples vs oranges" thing to me, and I've never been able to reach any kind of foundation mutual understanding with him on this debate. So all I can say is that nothing he's presented changes my ideas or opinions of what I see in the film.

On your question about film frames in or out of sequence, I don't see that as a factor which would affect the analysis. If you feel it might, I'd be willing to listen to why you thought it might.

Bill

 

[Aepervius]

When the idea that the face is too blurry to show any detail is raised the so called glint of light off of Bob H's false eye stuck in mask for realism should be included in the none observable wishful thinking details too.

False eye don't always glint, you know. If there are only diffuse light for example, at that distance and llevel of detail you would not be able to see a damn difference with difuse light.

 

[LAL]

Or maybe you aren't even pointing at his lips? How could you possibly claim to tell that from a still of that quality?

I didn't. Owen Caddy and Dr. Swindler (Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, a giant in the field of primatology, author of the standard text on primate anatomy) did. I assume Owen added the arrows. The pic is a capture from Monster Quest: Bigfoot.

I can understand you not reading books, but do you at least watch television?

 

[kitakaze]

The look:

This is a hack fabrication. A blatant lie by Bigfoot enthusiasts. That photoshop joke is funnier than Creekfreak's Bigfoot photoshop hoax. Lu, why are you endorsing an obvious cartoonish fabrication?

 

[rockinkt]

Because real evidence is non-existent.

 

[Mad Hom]

I think you mean the one that Dfoot made using parts of Don Post masks (and lips from a Wookiee mask that acted as replacements for the lips from a Don Post caveman mask). Here are some pictures of it.

Well yeah kind of...but I seem to recall he had a pic of an un-tampered with Don Post mask that was verrrrrrrry similiar in piehole appearance to Patty....or maybe I'm mistaken.

Would Dfoot please pick up the Red Security phone...you have a call.

 

[Mad Hom]

This is a hack fabrication. A blatant lie by Bigfoot enthusiasts. That photoshop joke is funnier than Creekfreak's Bigfoot photoshop hoax. Lu, why are you endorsing an obvious cartoonish fabrication?

Kit,my good man that was what I thought the first time I gazed into it's Photoshopped eyes as well...at absolute best it's wishful editing.

 

[kitakaze]

Kit,my good man that was what I thought the first time I gazed into it's Photoshopped eyes as well...at absolute best it's wishful editing.

I can just see Rick Noll hanging over some tech kid's shoulder during the making of that MonsterQuest episode...

"Mean, kid! I mean mean! Like I'm BA Baracus and you farted in my van. I-pity-the-fool mean!"

Possible inspiration for the mouth:

 

[Mad Hom]

This one is a bit clearer.

[qimg]http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb281/LAL2U/Compressedlips.jpg[/qimg]

It looks like a chimp showing compressed lip expression, too. Maybe the chimp is wearing a Don Post mask.

Lu you're all over the place...the Patty grill in this lip compression comparison you're currently promoting looks nothing like Photoshop Patty which not more than a few posts ago you were presenting as the more accurate depiction of Pattie's piehole.

The lips on this current Patty photo no longer look a cotton picking thing like Pattyshop.

So which is it Lu??

Lip Compression Patty (so as to fit into your comparison)

or

B.A Patty??

Go ahead and assume that you can't actually have it both ways.

 

[kitakaze]

Well yeah kind of...but I seem to recall he had a pic of an un-tampered with Don Post mask that was verrrrrrrry similiar in piehole appearance to Patty....or maybe I'm mistaken.

Would Dfoot please pick up the Red Security phone...you have a call.

I think Madness is referring to the Wah Chang sculpted mask that Dfoot believes was used:



Considering Dfoot was bang on about Verne Langdon's involvement with the creation of the Minnesota Iceman (ironic that he was interviewed by the BFF) I am much more inclined to listen to him about where the Patty mask came from.

 

[Drewbot]

Regarding Dfoot's various activities, let me just say that, with all due respect for his determination and his research work, his methodology of presentation and the way he structures his arguments is simply so different from mine that trying to reconsile his arguments with mine is an "apples vs oranges" thing to me, and I've never been able to reach any kind of foundation mutual understanding with him on this debate. So all I can say is that nothing he's presented changes my ideas or opinions of what I see in the film.
Bill

DFOOT- I'm glad to see you back around here!
I'd love to see an exchange that ignores argument structures and focuses point by point on some of Bill Munn's points. This is just a summary of the parts of the PGF Munns is confident about. DFoot could you agree/disagree with these three points? if so, what is your reasoning?

1. If it is a suit, it's definitely not a "cheap suit" as often stated by people trying to just dismiss the whole matter and intimidate those who disagree. If it is a suit, it represents elements of sophistication far beyond the norm for the time.

2. The "Roger could make the suit because he's a... (fill in your favorite noun, artist, saddlemaker, con man, or whatever)" idea is not supported by anything I've seen in 6 months of study. This idea is mere skeptical wishful thinking.

3. If the film is a hoaxed event with a human in a suit, I assume that professionals must have been involved in making the suit and working with it during the filming event, and any explanation that a hoaxed film event was done by three guys (including the one wearing the supposed suit) when none had any documented professional level filmmaking experience such an explanation I would regard as delusional fantesy.

http://www.billmunnscreaturegallery.com/bmcgsite_060.htm

 

[tyr_13]

I didn't. Owen Caddy and Dr. Swindler (Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, a giant in the field of primatology, author of the standard text on primate anatomy) did. I assume Owen added the arrows. The pic is a capture from Monster Quest: Bigfoot.

I can understand you not reading books, but do you at least watch television?

Actually I read a lot of books and I do watch Monster Quest. That however has absolutely nothing to do with the credibility of your evidence nor my assessment of it.

So they showed a blurry picture to a primate expert and he saw monkey lips. What a shock. Next are you going to show clouds to aerospace engineers and be surprised when they see airplanes? How about showing a baker inkblots and never expecting him to see cakes?

The man looking at the blurry photo being a primatologist doesn't in any possible way make the photo's quality useful. Not in the least.

 

[Crowlogic]

False eye don't always glint, you know. If there are only diffuse light for example, at that distance and llevel of detail you would not be able to see a damn difference with difuse light.

No argument from me about a false eye glinting or not glinting. I mention it because it has been stated that Bob H inserted glass eye in the mask to help with realism. In at least one instance a writer mentions the glass eye and points out a glint of light supposedly showing up in the face (frame 352). The glint/white spot is usually visable in the blow ups of the face in frame 352.

My point is that arguments are made against the film that based on the resouluition render those arguments as usless and hollow as the most fanciful. Arrow points to supposed glint.