• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lu,

Nothing personal. There’s a right way and a wrong, if wrong it needs to be corrected, plain and simple. You know Lu, you sound just like my teenage daughter who has bitched and moaned all the way to a cumulative 3.92 gpa. Don’t blame it on the machine, it’s operator error, in this case it’s specifically called monitor calibration, maybe you should read up on it.

Nice try, Bill Millers still a Hack.


m

There is nothing wrong with the monitors. They're all LCD. You might want to tell the techs at the college they have the shiny new monitors calibrated incorrectly - they did the same thing my desktop did. I stretched the image horizontally using Photoshop Elements 2.0 on one of the school's Gateways. It looks too wide now that I'm home with the notebook.

Check out the images on this site.

http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

And this site:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/billmiller.htm

How do they look to you?

(They both look correct on my Acer Aspire 3680 -

Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator Driver for Mobile Report


Report Date: 09/10/2008
Report Time[hr:mm:ss]: 22:45:31
Driver Version: 7.14.10.1322
Operating System: Windows Vista (TM) Home Basic* , (6.0.6000)
Default Language: English
DirectX* Version: 10.0
Physical Memory: 501 MB
Minimum Graphics Memory: 8 MB
Maximum Graphics Memory: 64 MB
Graphics Memory in Use: 33 MB
Processor: x86 family 6 Model 15 Stepping 6
Processor Speed: 1600 MHZ
Vendor ID: 8086
Device ID: 27A2
Device Revision: 03


* Accelerator Information *

Accelerator in Use: Mobile Intel(R) 945 Express Chipset Family
Video BIOS: 1313
Current Graphics Mode: 1024 by 768 High Color (60 Hz) )

The monitor on my desktop has never had the factory settings changed.



You didn't answer my question. What do you have against Miller?
 
Last edited:
I don't do .gifs tp prove something.

Fair enough, but you should at least present a series of frames to show that this isn't the result of light and shadows.

Correa Neto said:
This is from 1925's "Lost World", for example...

Thanks for the still image. It offers a nice change of pace from linking to clips from "The Lost World."

2. Head:
Now, when it comes to face, we have drawings which look like those "apeman" (or H. erectus or old neanderthal rendering) renderings and others which are more gorilla-like, whith a pronounced saggital crest. Again, not impossible for the time, and we have examples of both cases. The funny thing is that Patty has a more pronounced crest than most of the drawings, including the males! Perhaps something inherited from an adapted gorilla costume?

That it could. Those interested in Dfoot's theory should check out 0:45-0:46 in this video.

Then again, as I've previously noted, Patterson's Kunstler-swipe and his Bigfoot sculpture seem to show a crest-like feature.

LAL said:
White Wolf? The interview was on Sasquatch Odyssey (1999) in the Special Features section. That's a Gryphon Production.

Oh, I thought that was from "Legend Meets Science." Thanks for clearing that up.

He gave his reasons.

Yeah, but without access to the raw footage, we have no way of knowing how much time he spent on the matter; we only see what the producers want us to see. You can tell from the change in backgrounds that we're not getting all the footage they shot with Mr. Winston.

It's not very convincing.

I wonder how it would look if it was filmed from the same distance from the camera as Patty?
 
There is nothing wrong with the monitors. They're all LCD. You might want to tell the techs at the college they have the shiny new monitors calibrated incorrectly - they did the same thing my desktop did. I stretched the image horizontally using Photoshop Elements 2.0 on one of the school's Gateways. It looks too wide now that I'm home with the notebook.

Check out the images on this site.

http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/billmiller.html

And this site:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/billmiller.htm

How do they look to you?

(They both look correct on my Acer Aspire 3680 -

Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator Driver for Mobile Report


Report Date: 09/10/2008
Report Time[hr:mm:ss]: 22:45:31
Driver Version: 7.14.10.1322
Operating System: Windows Vista (TM) Home Basic* , (6.0.6000)
Default Language: English
DirectX* Version: 10.0
Physical Memory: 501 MB
Minimum Graphics Memory: 8 MB
Maximum Graphics Memory: 64 MB
Graphics Memory in Use: 33 MB
Processor: x86 family 6 Model 15 Stepping 6
Processor Speed: 1600 MHZ
Vendor ID: 8086
Device ID: 27A2
Device Revision: 03


* Accelerator Information *

Accelerator in Use: Mobile Intel(R) 945 Express Chipset Family
Video BIOS: 1313
Current Graphics Mode: 1024 by 768 High Color (60 Hz) )

The monitor on my desktop has never had the factory settings changed.



You didn't answer my question. What do you have against Miller?

The image used in both those sites, of Bob H. and the Corvette is clearly and obviously distorted, just as the version posted here is. I don't think it's a monitor calibration issue, unless you are really actually seeing circular tires and reasonable proportions on that Corvette! Even if you'd never had an inkling of what Bob Heironymous looked like, you should be able to spot what's wrong with that picture. It's a bad picture, and doubly bad given the context in which it is used.

I know it's your custom to cut a good deal of slack for folks on the pro bigfoot side of the issue, but if Miller is willing to use an image so obviously bogus to bolster his argument, how are we to be sure that other images are not more subtly bogus? Whether you conclude that this is fraud or simply very sloppy work, the question that results seems more or less the same: how much of the obvious do you forgive before you accept the possibility that the less obvious is also wrong?

The preparation of those pages shows considerable care, and a good deal of familiarity with image manipulation, enhancement, etc. I just can't accept that a person putting that much work and time and thought into a subject that important to himself put a picture so obviously distorted, and just happening to be so obviously distorted in favor of his own assertions, by accident! Maybe you can, but I can't.
 
kitakaze wrote:
Do you really think just by saying so you can convince anyone that we can see the exact same movement in the left foot that is seen in the right?


You, like Astro, are working under a false assumption here.....that I'm trying to convince "skeptics" on this board of anything related to Bigfoot.

As I've pointed out, many times over, the only thing 'skeptics' here are interested in is proof of Bigfoot's existence.
Therefore....there is no point in anyone trying to convince 'Randi's Heroes' that the evidence carries any weight.... since you all either cannot, or will not, acknowledge such a thing.
So, accordingly....I don't care what your opinion of the weight of the evidence is. I know ahead of time that you'll say it's worthless, or weightless.

As a matter of fact....years ago I tried to convince Lu, in emails, not to waste her time trying to convince the skeptics here of anything. (Ask her.)
I knew, way back then, that the mindset here was.....very simply......"prove it".


I post animated-gifs and stills on this board for 2 basic reasons...to "spread the truth", as I see it....and for the fun of watching "skeptics" duck, dodge, run and hide from it.

Like mangler's "head shadow theory"....or the "doll-hand illusion"...or "it's an illusion caused by background colors" (LTC, on Patty's finger movement).
It is nothing short of hilarious to see what people will dream-up just to keep the Bigfooties away! :)



Now, in the case of Patty's toe movement.....I don't care what you see, or don't see, kitty.

All I'm interested in is what you can provide in the way of a counter-argument...or counter-analysis.
Nothing else really matters.

Can you demonstrate that what I've pointed out is moving on Patty's left foot is not moving at all?

If you can, let's see it.
If you can't...then there's all the more reason for me to think that what I'm seeing is right...and the truth.

Can you replicate the movement I've pointed-out on Patty's right foot, with a fake foot w/fake toes??

Can you demonstrate that that "apparent movement" of the front part of Patty's right foot could actually be the shadow of a person's head??

Can you replicate the apparent calf muscle bulging/movement we can see on Patty's left leg....with a padded pant-leg.......or can you show that there isn't actually any bulging/movement at all?


Feel free to put-up some actual analysis, kitty....because that's the only thing that carries any real weight.
Your opinion, and beliefs, are meaningless.
 
or the "doll-hand illusion"...or "it's an illusion caused by background colors" (LTC, on Patty's finger movement).
It is nothing short of hilarious to see what people will dream-up just to keep the Bigfooties away!

Once again for observers, these theories were in response to a request by sweaty to provide some alternate possible explanations for what Sweaty thought he saw regarding Patty's hand. Sweaty then promptly stabbed those who responded in the back by using the responses to ridicule. Something he has done over and over again since his bait was taken.
 
Oh look, a Bill Munns interview. In that interview Bill tells us he wondered if someone with his level of knowledge and experience had brought that experience forward in examining the PGF. What we know is that FX makers with far greater experience have examined the PGF and proclaimed it a fake based on their professional opinion. So Bill Munns observations disqualify those professional opinions? In that same interview Bill Munns tells us that Chris Walas is a "very, very brilliant and talented make up artist himself. Right, him too. Let's again have a look at some of Chris Walas' professional qualifications.

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)

Now in that interview with Melissa Hovey when asked what movie creatures Bill Munns is responsible for he lists the Swamp Thing and Arcane Monster, Beast Master Bird Warrior bodies, replication of the Dawn of Man sequence from 2001 for a computer commercial, and making but not conceptual design of Tar Man from The Return of the Living Dead. Let's check in with imdb for a better look at Bill's qualifications in comparison to Chris Walas':

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0612989/

Bill was, BTW, nominated for a Saturn Award in 1986 for his work on The Return of the Living Dead.

Make-Up Department:

The Return of the Living Dead (1985) (special makeup effects artist)

Superstition (1982) (special makeup effects supervisor)
... aka The Witch (USA)

The Beastmaster (1982) (special makeup designer)
... aka Beastmaster - Der Befreier (West Germany)

Swamp Thing (1982) (special makeup effects designer)

Miscellaneous Crew:
1980s
1970s

Swamp Thing (1982) (prosthetics constructor)


Blackenstein (1973) (prosthetics constructor)
... aka Black Frankenstein
... aka Return of Blackenstein

Art Department:

The Boogens (1981) (design and construction: Boogen)

Special Effects:

The Peace Killers (1971) (special effects)

In the interview with Bill Munns that LAL linked Munns tells us that he "drew a blank" at Walas' description of a suit of two pieces, top and bottom. That he had never heard of that with such a suit and couldn't imagine it. He then goes into detailing why. In this instance I'm much more inclined to accept the observations of the vastly more experience Chris Walas than I am for those of Bill Munns. In addition to this is the agreement of Walas' observation of a suit by master Rick Baker after frame by frame analysis. Now let's have a look at JohnWS' post in which he notes Chris Cowan describing ape suits for the movie Congo being done in the way that makes Bill Munns draw a blank:

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 :D).

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


Now it has already been mentioned in the past here that Munns' involvement on Return of the Living Dead did not end well and I had no intention of bringing it up but I found this one bit of trivia that I found ironic enough that I wanted to share it.

http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/2007/09/12/return-of-the-living-dead/

Because RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD was a modestly budgeted film, the production could not afford the services of one of Hollywood’s premier makeup artists (like Dick Smith or Rick Baker). Instead, they hired William Munns, who had provided low-budget makeup effects for several small films around that time (e.g., THE BOOGENS). Director O’Bannon was so unhappy with Munn’s work that Munns was fired, and Kenny Myers came into to finish up the project (additional makeup effects, such as the talking half-corpse, were supplied by Tony Gardner). Most of Munns work remains in long-shots and group-shots; his version of the decapitated zombie is almost entirely replaced except for one brief cut of it pinned to the ground. Strangely, one of the makeup highlights in the film is the Tar Man; except for a few insert close-ups, the version scene in the film is entirely Munns’ work.

In order to avoid a possible X-rating, makeup man William Munns supplied a flesh-colored bikini-shaped prosthetic device to cover Linnea Quigley’s groin during her nude striptease in the cemetery. The result made her resemble a hairless “Barbie doll” (in Munns’ words).

The production was designed by William Stout, who book of dinosaur drawings inspired Michael Crichton to write JURASSIC PARK.

I just found it interesting that Bill Munns best known work is arguably the Tar Man from The Return of the Living Dead. Tar Man was designed by production designer Bill Stout. Reportedly Bill Stout did a book of dinosaur drawings which inspired Michael Crichton to write Jurassic Park. Bill Munns cites the Jurassic Park film and advent of CG domination as his reason for leaving that business.
 
You, like Astro, are working under a false assumption here.....that I'm trying to convince "skeptics" on this board of anything related to Bigfoot.

As I've pointed out, many times over, the only thing 'skeptics' here are interested in is proof of Bigfoot's existence.

Not only proof, reliable evidence also. Given what we are told of Bigfoot by Bigfoot enthusiasts we should have both. You know the difference. Here is a post from about a month ago where I mopped the floor with your attempt imply that proof and reliable evidence are the same:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3944783#post3944783

I don't think you liked that post very much. Never touched it. Never went back to it. You've been asked repeatedly to address but one month later and still no dice. Seems like Sweaty would rather pretend it's not there, wait a while, and try the same crap again.


I post animated-gifs and stills on this board for 2 basic reasons...to "spread the truth", as I see it....and for the fun of watching "skeptics" duck, dodge, run and hide from it.

Time and again I show your ducking, dodging, running, and hiding. It's very easy, I can do it in my sleep. Others like Astrophotographer are finding how easy it is too.

Like mangler's "head shadow theory"....or the "doll-hand illusion"...or "it's an illusion caused by background colors" (LTC, on Patty's finger movement).
It is nothing short of hilarious to see what people will dream-up just to keep the Bigfooties away! :)

Right, you ask for alternate explanations, people spot you, and you mock them when they do. Honest debate, right?

Can you demonstrate that what I've pointed out is moving on Patty's left foot is not moving at all?

If you can, let's see it.
If you can't...then there's all the more reason for me to think that what I'm seeing is right...and the truth.

I see a foot moving but I see nothing in the manner of an articulated movement within the foot itself. Nothing at all in the manner of what may or may not be occurring in Patty's right foot.

Can you replicate the movement I've pointed-out on Patty's right foot, with a fake foot w/fake toes??

Can you demonstrate that that "apparent movement" of the front part of Patty's right foot could actually be the shadow of a person's head??

Patty's right foot may or may not be showing some clown foot upward movement. It has not been established. Your attempt to verify that possibility was to show a gif that does not show the same movement and claim that it does. Anyone with their own two eyes can see that. I can however point to what am very confident of being a simple demonstration of the fake nature of Patty's feet:

Let's rock!

Can you replicate the apparent calf muscle bulging/movement we can see on Patty's left leg....with a padded pant-leg.......or can you show that there isn't actually any bulging/movement at all?

We can see? You mean "you can see." Why do you always compulsively rely on these dishonest tactics? Why do you think you can slip that garbage in and nobody will notice? You get busted everytime. It's sad, really. You say you see muscle movement, all I see is two funky lumps. I already mopped the floor with your leg confined realism of Patty McLumpy. You didn't seem confident in coming back to that one either. Here is where we left off:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3987927#post3987927

So those posts I linked above and also the ones regarding unicorn plausibility and Chico. As always, still waiting...
 
Meldrum already has a ready-made answer for that Video Kitakaze. When I pressed him on this issue, he simply stated that Sasquatch's heel may be an adaptive middle ground or a foot like a biped yet adapted to climbing rough terrain.

Bigfoot may be the most adaptable beast to walk the face of the earth.

Why does it need fur in Florida?
Has any other animal evolved infrasound capabilities?
Has it adapted to the recent decrease in population of the PNW Tree Octopus on which it normally feeds? http://zapatopi.net/bsa/octopus.html
 
Last edited:
As a matter of fact....years ago I tried to convince Lu, in emails, not to waste her time trying to convince the skeptics here of anything. (Ask her.)
I knew, way back then, that the mindset here was.....very simply......"prove it".

I pointed you to this board, didn't I? Whatever was I thinking of?

The debates here started me buying books (17 titles) and DVDs (about the same counting taped TV shows), so if nothing else I've filled up a shelf.

If you're looking for character assassination, this is definitely the place to go. ;)
 
If anyone is still interested, the resolution on my IC POwer monitor hooked to my old workhorse HP Pavillion x1923 is 1280x1024 with 32 bit color. I'll check the Gateways next time I'm in class next week.

No alteration, no attempts at deception on anyone's part. Retractions are in order but I don't expect to see any anytime soon.
 
Have you seen that in motion?

It's near the end of this collection of deleted scenes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl3cCKA5S_w&feature=related

I have the other one you posted in a clip in Sasquatch Odyssey. It's not very convincing.
Ah, here enters a BIG bias... A mistake most PGF defenders make, an error which has been pointed here countless time.

How long is the PGF part where we can see Patty more clearly?
What's PGF detail level, how big and how detailed is Patty shown?

Now, ask yourself the same question about every single gorilla costume we've shown pics of here. Compare results. The outcome?

All those costumes are seen for much longer and with much more details than Patty. That's why its easy to spot flaws and eventually (for some) consider them "not as good as Patty".

I must add that I think some of the "not as good as Patty" statements, BTW are either heavilly biased, fantasies or the product of ignorance (or some combination of the former) to say the least. For example, every now an then some footer writes that the 1976 King Kong is not as realistic as Patty. I say this is not true and here's why:
kong176xPatty2.jpg

Get us a shot of Patty with the same resolution which look as good as this and I will gladly change my mind.

At last, but not least, statements such as "looks like the real thing for me" similar have little if any value. They are based in nothing but personal perceptions. At PGF I see a man in a gorilla bigfoot suit others see a real living creature. Who's right and why?
 
Has any primate evolved infrasound?
Has any terrestrial vertebrate evolved glowing eyes?
Has any large terrestrial vertebrate evolved über-stealth skills?
 
...snip... As I've pointed out, many times over, the only thing 'skeptics' here are interested in is proof of Bigfoot's existence.
Therefore....there is no point in anyone trying to convince 'Randi's Heroes' that the evidence carries any weight.... since you all either cannot, or will not, acknowledge such a thing...snip...
This is not true and you know that.

We ask for reliable evidence, not proof. More than once we explained what reliable evidence is.

So I suggest you to fix that statement of yours if you actually want to "spread the truth".

BTW, when it come to reliable evidence, got some?
No.
 
Lu,

Same image, two websites.

Do you honestly not understand what’s going on? You’re right about the retractions, both Short and Miller need to fix their mistakes and apologize to the people that they have led around by the leash, but I don't expect to see that any anytime soon.


m

 
If anyone is still interested, the resolution on my IC POwer monitor hooked to my old workhorse HP Pavillion x1923 is 1280x1024 with 32 bit color. I'll check the Gateways next time I'm in class next week.

No alteration, no attempts at deception on anyone's part. Retractions are in order but I don't expect to see any anytime soon.
So are you saying that the picture of Bob H is in correct proportions on all your computers? It seems odd that on my computers this picture is so obviously not, while no other pictures are, and all the rest of the formatting of the pages is clearly correct, and that all versions of this picture posted anywhere are distorted in the same way. If there is some anomaly to the way this particular picture displays on some monitors but not on others, it would be very strange indeed. Why only this one picture?
 
Correa Neto; [qimg said:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/kong176xPatty2.jpg[/qimg]
Get us a shot of Patty with the same resolution which look as good as this and I will gladly change my mind.

There are a host of problems comparing that King Kong to Patty. Compared to a real gorilla both Kong 1 and Kong 2 look dismal. Kong 3 isn't too bad but that's another tech universe that created him. Posting a crummy blurry frame from PGF and and challanging its clairity and focus does nothing to support the argument of Kong either in or out of focus. Since the PGF frame you posted is clearly showing pixilation it's not representative of the bettter quality frames that exist. I incidently saw Kong 2 in the movies and it looked fair at best. Notice the whites of Kon's eyes in the photo you posted they are way too white and are a dead givaway to fake.

Perhaps another way to approach the issue is to post Chimp and Gorillia photos in the same resolution and focus as the PGF as a means to determine whether or not it will add queston marks to the realism of the animals pictured.
 
Last edited:
Has any large terrestrial vertebrate evolved über-stealth skills?

Not to invalidate your point, but humans.

Of course humans use tools to achieve that level of stealth (even low tech tools like suits made of grass and charcoal). Also, hound dogs still track humans, and even the most stealthy humans eventually get on camera.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom