Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[GT/CS]

Astrophotographer:

You seem to want a perfect world and you seem to want me in particular to confine myself to it.

reality isn't as neat as you'd like it and my work will apparently never reach your personal standard of fairness.

I'll continue to post my thoughts and opinions, where i choose, and the feedback from others does help me clarify my ongoing studies. I'll continue to do interviews at my discretion. I'll try to present my ideas with as much clarity as I can, but some people will misunderstand me, what I say and what I've done. This is not new, nor exclusive to me.

The world if filled with stupid people who misunderstand things. I will never let them rule my life, as I'm sure you would never let them rule yours.

The difference between you and I is that i use my real name, and you don't, and my real life, real career, and real experiences are reported with far greater gossip and scrutiny than you and your actual life. So my behavior in this forum is different than yours.

I will never clear up all the misunderstandings about my life and work and thoughts, as I wish I could. But I will not allow the misunderstandings to rule or restrict my life and activities.

And i won't let you make any rules for my work. Won't happen. Complain if you like, or give it a rest. Won't change what I do.


Bill

The next time you claim to be smarter than others make sure you are able to spell, "is" correctly.

 

[Bill Munns]

GT/CS

Thank you for pointing out that my spelling isn't perfect. I am humbled by your devastating criticism.

Bill

 

[kitakaze]

Don't you think someone who's been researching since 1957 might know more about it than people who get their information from the media and other posters on the Internet?

I think he mentioned someone (no names, of course) claiming he built the suit in Apes Among Us, published, when? 1986? He kept the letters Wallace sent him and was on to him decades ago.

I don't agree with John on all things, but he was there and we weren't.

I don't have any authority figures (and I don't like stereotyping), but I do like going to the source.

Bob Heironimus is the only person to have made claim to being Patty and has significant circumstantial evidence to back him. Your claim otherwise is unfounded and unsubstantiated. You simply recycle what Green tells you. My point is made.

BTW, did you catch Bill Munns making it clear that you misinterpeted his words about Patty in giving the impression that he makes a suit being used near impossible? Now you know. Read Munns.

 

[kitakaze]

I'm not saying anything to cater to any crowd. I'm expressing my thoughts and describing my studies as best I can. A few people on each side of the issues seem to misunderstand what I say or write. Offhand, I'd say those on the skeptical side of the fence have a higher propensity for misunderstanding me, based on my reading of their remarks.

Bill Munns is not saying anything to cater to any crowd. The following bolded remarks do not display any bias and are not salacious for Bigfoot enthusiasts.

2. The "Roger could make the suit because he's a. . . (fill in your favorite noun, artist, saddlemaker, con man, or whatever)" idea is delusional and nothing I've seen in six months of study is even remotely supportive of that wishful thinking by many skeptics.

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 fantasy.

Although Mr. Munns seems to be taking lessons in creative writing from Young Earth Creationist commentary on evolution with words like 'delusional' used liberally he is in fact not catering to any crowd. No betrayal of emotion can be seen here.

A few people on each side of the issues seem to misunderstand what I say or write. Offhand, I'd say those on the skeptical side of the fence have a higher propensity for misunderstanding me, based on my reading of their remarks.

Offhand tip to Bigfoot enthusiasts: when misinterpreting the musings of Bill Munns by reading an overstatement of confidence in the subject of the PGF not being a suit, be sure to insert comments of praise and admiration in your post. Not only does it consistently seem to keep Bill from noticing but you will also contribute to that misperception being received as fact.

 

[rockinkt]

Although Mr. Munns seems to be taking lessons in creative writing from Young Earth Creationist commentary on evolution with words like 'delusional' used liberally he is in fact not catering to any crowd. No betrayal of emotion can be seen here.

Pretty obvious isn't it.



Only someone who is delusional* would take a piece of crappy film - ignore the fact that its provenance cannot be demonstrated - and think that analyzing it will somehow make it become worth something as "evidence" to anybody with the ability to think rationally.

* with ulterior motives may be substituted freely and accurately - IMHO.

 

[LAL]

1) I believe that one bigfoot proponent placed the height in the 6 foot 2 range. Maybe I got that wrong. What is the accepted height for "aunt bunny" anyway? Can you produce a value?

2) The IM index is a false measurement and you know it. We have been over this already. Can you point to where the bones end and start in these pictures? You can't. Additionally, if it were a suit, it would make the measurements inaccurate. I also pointed out that Bob H. in the suit measured to have an IM index of about 79 when I attempted to do it. Meldrum could not even get an accurate measurement and, instead, gave a range of 80-90. Who is to say his margin for error could drop the IM index to 72?

3) Watch Eddie Murphy. He claimed his "aunt bunny" was a woman that was once a bigfoot that his uncle shaved and taught to talk. Funny stuff. Who knows, maybe it is "aunt bunny" in the film. "Gooney goo-goo"

Sorry, I'm not an Eddie Murphy fan (although I liked his Mr. Robinson's neighborhood skit and the one about God and his assistant making man). I have a whole collection of movies on DVD I've never watched and I only recently got a dish after 11 years with approximately one channel on air TV. My friends are into Robot Chicken and reading books, so I tend to miss a lot and I'm really behind the times, except when it comes to things like ERVs proving common descent..

As soon as you guys get through establishing BH's IM index is really 88, we can move right along to the shoulder joints being a foot farther apart than McClarin's and Ray can dig out the chessboards again.

In his book, Grover Krantz came up with a rather conservative estimate of 6'-6.5' for the walking height. Using the known stride length he got a standing height of 78.8".

Approximate doesn't=inacurate.

 

[kitakaze]

Oh, Somewhere in the 90's or late 80's it "morphed" to a something like an Homo erectus or an australopithecine on steroids - Like some Patterson's sketches and Marvel's sasquatch character- even tough Patty does not look like this. I would need to take a deeper look on bigfoot imagery to confirm or deny this idea.

Which brings up Patterson's drawings and why they don't seem to represent the subject of the PGF. Obviously Patterson had a conception of what he thought the animals looked like and created artwork of those conceptions. Why then does the PGF creature look so unlike Patterson's own ideas? When I first saw the PGF I thought that it didn't looked at all the artist conceptions of the Yeti or other man/ape creatures that were circulating at the time.

If nothing else I think this helps disprove the idea that Patterson made the suit.

Here's Patterson's drawing of the Roe encounter from his book:



Here's the Morgan Kunstler illustration he copied it from:



Here's Patterson's "Old Lady" Bigfoot drawing from his book next to Patty:



Patterson included William Roe's affidavit report of his alleged female Bigfoot encounter in his book. He copied Morton Kunstler's illustration of the encounter in his book. He was obviously heavily impressed by the story. He spent considerable time considering and drawing female sasquatches. The PGF plays like a filmed re-enactment of the Roe encounter. Patterson illustrated males as being huge - so big that a man in a suit would not suffice were he to try and create a filmed encounter with one. To expect Patty to look exactly as he illustrated female Bigfoots is ridiculous and unreasonable if we are to follow the reasoning that he conducted a hoax.

IMO, anyone who can't recognize the significance of this circumstantial evidence in regards to the Patterson/Gimlin hoax demonstrates judgement impaired by the desire for Patty to be real.

 

[LAL]

Bob Heironimus is the only person to have made claim to being Patty and has significant circumstantial evidence to back him. Your claim otherwise is unfounded and unsubstantiated. You simply recycle what Green tells you. My point is made.

BH is the only you know of to have made the claim.

Doesn't Mark Chorvinsky's article give you pause when it says Greg Smith said he heard Tom Burman was the guy in the suit?

Those guys were using that valuable scientific tool called "common sense".

Chorvinsky got a denial from Chambers, so no saying only "enthusiast" Bobbie Short got a denial. But who believes John Chambers?

Which of the hair planters do you think was the "real" suit maker?

BTW, did you catch Bill Munns making it clear that you misinterpeted his words about Patty in giving the impression that he makes a suit being used near impossible? Now you know. Read Munns.

Read me.

I said, "I also listened to the interview with Bill Munns and I'm astounded that any of you can still be arguing for a suit. Talk about wishful thinking!" Is there something ambiguous about that?

Just how do we get from that to me stating his position or implying he's saying different things in different places? All you have to do is read and listen for yourselves. Without going back and reading all his posts here I assume he's said much the same things on JREF, but I haven't read as much here as I have on BFF. Therefore, I'm astounded you guys can still be arguing for a suit.

You (and others) have a tendency to misinterpret what I say and then declare that's what I said. Read what he said above about hip waders and the like accounting for lines. One part of the LTB interview that stood out for me was where he basically said, regarding the "Walas line" that suits just aren't made that way. Another was the length of horsehair and how only a particular breed of pony (forgot the name) would fill the bill. He gives solid reasons for why these glib "it's a suit" explanations don't work. I don't believe I said anything about his own position or implied in any way he's saying different things in different places.

I did learn something about suit making.

 

[LAL]

Which brings up Patterson's drawings and why they don't seem to represent the subject of the PGF. Obviously Patterson had a conception of what he thought the animals looked like and created artwork of those conceptions. Why then does the PGF creature look so unlike Patterson's own ideas? When I first saw the PGF I thought that it didn't looked at all the artist conceptions of the Yeti or other man/ape creatures that were circulating at the time.

If nothing else I think this helps disprove the idea that Patterson made the suit.

Agreed. He apparently copied his rodeo rider picture too. I don't see where the Roger-the-great-artist idea came from. His own work disproves that.

 

[kitakaze]

For your viewing pleasure.

Kiss Aunt Bunny.

Aunt Bunny down the steps.

Gooney goo goo. (from 6:00)

(Warning: remove all beverages from vicinity of computer. Contains profanity.)

 

[LAL]

 

[kitakaze]

BH is the only you know of to have made the claim.

Are you implying that you are aware of another person to have made the claim? Come now, Lu. You're no dummy and this sad effort to avoid admitting that you know of no other person claiming to be Patty is rather embarrassing. If you know of such a person give evidence. If not, remove the claim.

Doesn't Mark Chorvinsky's article give you pause when it says Greg Smith said he heard Tom Burman was the guy in the suit?

You are doing exactly as I predicted here:

Please either concede the point or provide the name of at least one of these people. Please do not try to skirt the issue by providing the name of someone who was implied by another person to be Patty.

Spare me the side-stepping. A person who themselves claimed to be Patty. No rumours, no garbage, no Jerry Romney.

BTW, hearing that Tom Burman was in the suit could easily have been mistaken from Tom Burman working on the suit.

Chorvinsky got a denial from Chambers, so no saying only "enthusiast" Bobbie Short got a denial. But who believes John Chambers?

If Chambers had knowledge of who made the suit or was even himself involved what reason would he have to reveal it?

I did learn something about suit making.

When the overwhelming majority of Hollywood experts in FX and suit design after examining the PGF say that Patty is a suit, the musings of Bill Munns don't carry the same weight with me and other skeptics as they do with someone such as yourself who is looking for any kind of support to latch onto for your preconceived notions.

I think that you wear your lack of objectivity on your sleeve when you refuse to concede even a simple point where you're clearly wrong such as with BH being the sole claimant.

 

[William Parcher]

Which brings up Patterson's drawings and why they don't seem to represent the subject of the PGF.

Oh really?

I believe this gif was done by wolftrax. The drawing is from the cover of Patterson's book.

 

[Astrophotographer]

As soon as you guys get through establishing BH's IM index is really 88, we can move right along to the shoulder joints being a foot farther apart than McClarin's and Ray can dig out the chessboards again.

Establishing? Aren't you going to make a measurement? Or are you just a bigfoot researcher parrot? Again, how do you explain that Meldrum could not come up with an exact value for the IM index? Is it because he had a margin for error or could not accurately measure the IM index? Seems plausible. Maybe you can demonstrate how it is done and then I can understand the methodology involved. Drawing lines on a figure in a film is not adequate and is open to all sorts of errors.

In his book, Grover Krantz came up with a rather conservative estimate of 6'-6.5' for the walking height. Using the known stride length he got a standing height of 78.8".

Funny, I thought another bigfoot proponent measurement demonstrated that Bigfoot was over 7-feet tall? Why the difference?

How is 78.5" anything unusual? A big guy could look like he was 6'6" in a suit. BTW, I arrive at a slightly smaller height of 62" using the foot as a standard in Frame 72 but then again, Aunt bunny is stooping. Based on what I have seen and experimented, the stoop takes away about 6-12" of height. This puts the height somewhere around 6". There is nothing unusual about this and the proportions are within normal reason. So your claim that the body proportions are abnormal for a human is not valid.

Approximate doesn't=inacurate.

Approximate is EXACTLY what the IM index being measured is. It is an approximate value that has a margin for error (which you don't seem to know the value for and nobody seemed to bother publishing). You were previously parrotting that it was the same as another skeleton. Obviously, when somebody says the IM index is 80-90, it is hard to figure how that is the "same as" another skeleton.

Again, I ask the question. What is the accepted height for Aunt Bunny?

 

[kitakaze]

Oh really?

[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/fc590c86.gif[/qimg]


I believe this gif was done by wolftrax. The drawing is from the cover of Patterson's book.

Holy Carp.

Good eye, wolftrax. The sculpture is similar too. I wonder about the cave man style heads that we see in Patterson's drawings and Patty. Is the shape of the head of the Patty mask the result of Patterson indicating to the designer that the head should slope back? Or more simply a matter of trying to obscure the shape of the human head within and lend to the impression of overall size? Minor speculation.

 

[JohnWS]

In view of LAL's comment re Chris Walas above, I re read Chris' posts that he made on BFF (You have to search for them, they aren't pinned ).

Here is his description of how such a suit would go together:

The pants section goes on first. This may or may not be supported by elastic suspenders, belt or other fastener. The pants can be made out of the surface material (here it would be fur), or if there is padding to be done, it was often built up on cotton long johns.
The top went on next; and in this instance would have been built up on some "shirt" base such as a long sleeve cotton top. The top section would have fasteners at the crotch to hold front and back together, similar to some infant clothes. This would cover enough of the pants section to insure "underwear" wouldn't show through

Compare this to a description by Chris Cowan of some ape suits constructed for Congo at Stan Winston Studio:

The bottom part of the muscle suit had the leg, gluteus and butt muscles, while the upper part went from the shoulders to the forearms and down to the crotch. The hair suit was also in two pieces. The pants, with the feet attached, slid on; then the torso section snapped along the upper thigh and under the crotch.

I think that sounds very similar though obviously the Congo suits appear much more sophisticated.

Cowan information from HERE

 

[kitakaze]

In view of LAL's comment re Chris Walas above, I re read Chris' posts that he made on BFF (You have to search for them, they aren't pinned )

Funny that way, aren't they?

Here's Chris Walas' BFF thread:

The Patterson Subject; a Professional Observation.

Chris says:

After long and close inspection, my opinion is that this is not only a suit, it’s not even a particularly remarkable one.

Info on Chris Walas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Walas

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0906901/

Academy award for Special Effects Make-Up on "The Fly" and director of "The Fly II."

Some of his work -

Make-Up Department:

DeepStar Six (1989) (creature effects)

The Kiss (1988) (special makeup effects artist)

Enemy Mine (1985) (special makeup effects artist)

Gremlins (1984) (special makeup effects artist)

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) (special makeup effects: ILM) (as Christopher Walas)

Special Effects:

Dark Heaven (2002) (designer: angels)

Naked Lunch (1991) (special creatures & effects) (uncredited)

Curse III: Blood Sacrifice (1991) (monster design)

Arachnophobia (1990) (creature effects supervisor)

The Fly II (1989) (effects designer and creator: Chris Walas Inc.)

House II: The Second Story (1987) (special effects foreman)

The Fly (1986) (creature effects)

Enemy Mine (1985) (aliens creator and designer: Chris Walas Inc.) (special creature makeup and effects director: Chris Walas Inc.)

Humanoids from the Deep (1980) (special effects) (uncredited)

Miscellaneous Crew:

Enemy Mine (1985) (aliens designer and creator)

Gremlins (1984) (creator: "Gremlins")

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) (creature consultant)

Dragonslayer (1981) (close-up dragon) (as Christopher Walas)

Caveman (1981) (creator: abominable snowman)

Piranha (1978) (armatures) (uncredited) (special properties)

Oh, look at that. Creature consultant for Return of the Jedi. Hmm, I think it moved.

 

[GT/CS]

GT/CS

Thank you for pointing out that my spelling isn't perfect. I am humbled by your devastating criticism.

Bill

You bet; glad to help.

So the next time you call someone stupid you will do so by spelling a two-letter word correctly? Good.

These posters are already handing you your lunch on a regular basis so I'd hate for you to look even worse in their eyes with stupid spelling mistakes.

 

[Bill Munns]

Thank you, one and all, for your entertaining commentaries. You provide a fascinating glimpse into the diversity of thought this forum emcompasses.

Bill

 

[kitakaze]

I re read Chris' posts that he made on BFF (snip)

JWS, I'm guessing you may have made note as I did that for the time Chris Walas spent examining the PG hoax he spent very little (10 posts) discussing his findings at the BFF. This was no doubt due to a busy schedule and contributed to by some of the more fanatical and highly-strung believers there.

For a moment I considered that, given his examination of the PG hoax was four years ago and he is now retired, he might be sought out for invitation for further discussion. Actually though, on further consideration it doesn't seem all that important given the simplicity and finality of his conclusions.

I personally found his observations very compelling and was glad to see that he very astutely addressed some of the issues we've discussed here at length many times over with various Bigfoot enthusiasts.

Thank you for pulling that out.