Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

There are a host of problems comparing that King Kong to Patty. Kong was a costume/model trying to replicate a real animal. 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.

First of all lets make sure we are talking about the same things. If by "Kong 1" you mean the first movie, sorry, that was created by stop-motion miniatures with a couple of "real-size" props used at a few scenes. If "Kong 1" and "Kong 2" are the 1976 and the 1986 version, then its partially correct; 1976 Kong used a costume and some real-life size animatronic props. If Jackson's Kong is "Kong 3", then yes, its another tech since it used mostly CGI.

This leaves us only with the 1976 and 1986 versions to compare. In both cases, Kong was not intended to replicate a real animal. There were discussions between the director and the FX crew. The director wanted something not very gorilla-like. Check the movie, see how many times Kong knuckle-walkes and you'll see who had the last word. BTW, what about someone checking Kong's IM?

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.

Oh, are there PGF frames which are not "crummy blurry frames"? Please show one with a better quality and I will gladly change the image in the comparison. Or you are talking about those "enhanced" frames? Note that I'd rather stick to the versions with the smallest possible ammounts of manipulation for obvious reasons.

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.

Oh, its an unknown animal, Crow! How can possibly you know how its eyes are actually!

As for the "fair at best", I suppose your evaluation is related to the FX scenes as a whole. What about this exercise- get the movie and look at the FX sequences. Compare them, individually, with PGF. Now do the same with the other films we indicated, remembering to always try to give more weight to segments with PGF's lenght and showing the costume at a similar relative size. Outperforming Patty, I think, will not be an issue, unless you let bias seep in to.

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.

Maybe. But again, the "it’s an unknown species" argument will show up every time there is dissonance.

However, the main problem is that features seen at real animals can be -voluntarily or not- reproduced by costumes. If you find a pic of a gorilla with a feature seen at Patty, this is not evidence that Patty is a real animal. If I find a pic of a costume with a feature seen at Patty, this is evidence that Patty MAY be a costume. Unless Patty’s image shows clearly a zipper or a seam, but then we would not be discussing PGF for countless pages. Note that this does not mean that that Patty costume was outstanding; it only means PGF imagery is not detailed enough to capture these features.

Personally I think comparing costumes individually is the second best way to evaluate PGF. The first one is to look at its (fishy) background.

And again, statements such as "looks like the real thing for me" and 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? Why my perception of a bloke in a suit is worse or better say, than Sweaty's?

 

[Correa Neto]

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.

Yes. This reminded me that, some people suppose bigfeet have ghillie suit-like hairs.

Aniway, some also say they can detect IR beams emmited by trail cams...
How many mammals can do that whithout the aid of technological tools?
How many large mammals can lurk at North America's backyard stealing beans bt never being caught?

 

[SweatyYeti]

"British team capture first pictures of Africa's 'unicorn'"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080910/sc_afp/britaindrcongoanimalwildlife

Dr Noelle Kumpel, ZSL's Bushmeat and Forests Conservation Programme Manager, said: "To have captured the first-ever photographs of such a charismatic creature is amazing, and particularly special for ZSL given that the species was originally described here over a century ago.

Contrary to what William Parcher, and company, have declared.....the "time limit" isn't up on capturing images of large, so-called 'mythical' animals for the first time.

Like I said before......the Earth is far, far larger than some people's abilities to comprehend it are.

 

[Correa Neto]

Bigfoot folies!!!!

A bigfoot image collage... There are only three types (despite the anatomic diferences):
-Known hoaxes
-Suspected of being hoaxes
-Pareidolia induced blobfeet

Holy crap! I forgot to add "gems" such as Redwoods, Memorial Day footage and that baby bigfoot dangling on a tree! Next time. Too lazy right now.

And at last, but not least, a high point in bigfootery science- Patty's reconstruction skeleton included, used to demonstrate the inhuman proportions and walk.

No, dear ladies and gentlemen, that's not a comic books' artist worse superhero or supervillain drawing! That's the product of bigfoot science! That's Patty! And we are supposed not to mock about it...

 

[Correa Neto]

"British team capture first pictures of Africa's 'unicorn'"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080910/sc_afp/britaindrcongoanimalwildlife





Contrary to what William Parcher, and company, have declared.....the "time limit" isn't up on capturing images of large, so-called 'mythical' animals for the first time.

Like I said before......the Earth is far, far larger than some people's abilities to comprehend it are.

Let's see...
Okapi specimens - check
Okapi fossils - check
Okapi imagery with good quality and not suspected of being a hoax- check

Bigfoot specimens - nope
Bigfoot fossils - nope
Bigfoot imagery with good quality and not suspected of being a hoax- nope

Yes, some people do have a problem understanging things...

Sweaty, if you want to spread the truth, then you should try not to distort it or cherry-pick parts of it.

 

[tyr_13]

It those are supposed to both be creations to show Patty's 'inhuman' proportions, why doesn't the flesh version match the skeleton? And who the hell did the hips and upper leg parts? That's messed up.

 

[Correa Neto]

There may be a size difference between the skeleton and the rendering, but there are things which do not fit, such as shoulders. But its bigfoot science at its peak. Why it does not fit? Ask the folks who made it, under top footers' supervision. You know, "Legend Meets (pseudo)Science"...

That thing looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger after a sex change, and not Patty...

 

[tyr_13]

It's just that height wise they line up, but the shoulders, the hips, the arms, and the legs don't match. My guess would be because the skeleton of the flesh render looks too human.

I knew you didn't create them, Correa Neto. I'm just hoping that some footer will address this.

It is funny that you mention the Govanator because he has the classic body builder body shape that he, myself, Danny Deveto, and Patty share which footers keep calling, 'inhuman'. Having short legs and a long torso isn't inhuman. I find that insulting.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Let's see...
Okapi specimens - check
Okapi fossils - check
Okapi imagery with good quality and not suspected of being a hoax- check

Bigfoot specimens - nope
Bigfoot fossils - nope
Bigfoot imagery with good quality and not suspected of being a hoax- nope

Replace ' Okapi 'with:
Ivory Bill Woodpecker
Giant Squid
Gorilla
Wolverine
Airplanes Lost in PNW ( ... except for fossil part )

Nope - they don't get it ...

 

[GT/CS]

It those are supposed to both be creations to show Patty's 'inhuman' proportions, why doesn't the flesh version match the skeleton? And who the hell did the hips and upper leg parts? That's messed up.

How could you miss those idiotic-looking feet?!!!

 

[Correa Neto]

Idiotic-looking feet will create idiotic-looking footprints. Quite often like crude wooden fakefeet. But we all know they are "the real deal"....

 

[Bill Munns]

Kitakaze:

Thank you for your detailed comparison of my film background as compared to that of Chris Walas.

I have always admired Chris and his many fine accomplishments in film makeup.

That said, I simply choose to respond to your post by saying every person may judge me and those who wish to judge me fairly should look at my website which illustrates the sum of my accomplishments thus far.

But nothing in this ongoing debate of the film will be resolved until people rise above judging people and focus on judging the film, and studies in relation to it.

Bill

 

[SweatyYeti]

Let's see...
Okapi specimens - check
Okapi fossils - check
Okapi imagery with good quality and not suspected of being a hoax- check

Bigfoot specimens - nope
Bigfoot fossils - nope
Bigfoot imagery with good quality and not suspected of being a hoax- nope

Yes, some people do have a problem understanging things...

Sweaty, if you want to spread the truth, then you should try not to distort it or cherry-pick parts of it.

What did I distort, Correa?

I simply stated the fact that a large animal, first seen approximately 100 years ago.....was just caught on video, for the very first time.

Is that not true?


I did not say that every aspect of the two subjects compared equally to each other.
Those differences do not change the point that I just stated above, and in my earlier post.


You are the one who has trouble understanding, Correa.

 

[Drewbot]

What did I distort, Correa?

I simply stated the fact that a large animal, first seen approximately 100 years ago.....was just caught on video, for the very first time.

Is that not true?


I did not say that every aspect of the two subjects compared equally to each other.
Those differences do not change the point that I just stated above, and in my earlier post.


You are the one who has trouble understanding, Correa.

Sweaty, as I had APEMAN clarify, the OKAPI hasn't been photographed in 50 years IN VIRUNGA NATIONAL PARK. The OKAPI isn't on the endangered species list, in fact there are captive breeding programs in the DRCongo.

APEMAN, please clarify, it's been 50 years since they were sighted in THE PARK ITSELF? or 50 years since they were sighted in the DRC? I am just curious, because I didn't even think they were on the Endangered species list.

Yes, Virunga NP (1959). I believe they are (or were) slightly more abundant, but still very rare, farther north in the Okapi Reserve area (duh) near where all kinds of horrible things are happening. That's also probably part of the reason there are no decent population estimates and they remain threatened but are not (yet) classified as endangered or anything more specific = no one seems to have even an estimate of how few or many there actually are left, as far as I know.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=23670&view=findpost&p=487345

You can do a Youtube search and get about 20 videos of one

 

[angelsaramark]

I saw a documentary that showed an interview with a rather tall individual that walked just like that so-called bigfoot in the Patterson film. It was obviously the person because he a peculiar walk...the same walk that gave me pause about the creature. The man had unusually long legs for a man and had the resultant strange gait.

 

[angelsaramark]

I saw a documentary that showed an interview with a rather tall individual that walked just like that so-called bigfoot in the Patterson film. It was obviously the person because he a peculiar walk...the same walk that gave me pause about the creature. The man had unusually long legs; and had the resultant strange gait.

 

[Crowlogic]

First of all lets make sure we are talking about the same things. If by "Kong 1" you mean the first movie, sorry, that was created by stop-motion miniatures with a couple of "real-size" props used at a few scenes. If "Kong 1" and "Kong 2" are the 1976 and the 1986 version, then its partially correct; 1976 Kong used a costume and some real-life size animatronic props. If Jackson's Kong is "Kong 3", then yes, its another tech since it used mostly CGI.

This leaves us only with the 1976 and 1986 versions to compare. In both cases, Kong was not intended to replicate a real animal. There were discussions between the director and the FX crew. The director wanted something not very gorilla-like. Check the movie, see how many times Kong knuckle-walkes and you'll see who had the last word. BTW, what about someone checking Kong's IM?


Oh, are there PGF frames which are not "crummy blurry frames"? Please show one with a better quality and I will gladly change the image in the comparison. Or you are talking about those "enhanced" frames? Note that I'd rather stick to the versions with the smallest possible ammounts of manipulation for obvious reasons.


Oh, its an unknown animal, Crow! How can possibly you know how its eyes are actually!

As for the "fair at best", I suppose your evaluation is related to the FX scenes as a whole. What about this exercise- get the movie and look at the FX sequences. Compare them, individually, with PGF. Now do the same with the other films we indicated, remembering to always try to give more weight to segments with PGF's lenght and showing the costume at a similar relative size. Outperforming Patty, I think, will not be an issue, unless you let bias seep in to.


Maybe. But again, the "it’s an unknown species" argument will show up every time there is dissonance.

However, the main problem is that features seen at real animals can be -voluntarily or not- reproduced by costumes. If you find a pic of a gorilla with a feature seen at Patty, this is not evidence that Patty is a real animal. If I find a pic of a costume with a feature seen at Patty, this is evidence that Patty MAY be a costume. Unless Patty’s image shows clearly a zipper or a seam, but then we would not be discussing PGF for countless pages. Note that this does not mean that that Patty costume was outstanding; it only means PGF imagery is not detailed enough to capture these features.

Personally I think comparing costumes individually is the second best way to evaluate PGF. The first one is to look at its (fishy) background.

And again, statements such as "looks like the real thing for me" and 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? Why my perception of a bloke in a suit is worse or better say, than Sweaty's?

I did mean Kong 1 as The King Kong of the 1932? Yes it was stop motion but the animal depicted does not represent an accurate gorilla. Most of the photos we a simple web hounds have to work with are copies of copies of scans of dubs of god only knows what. I have seen better stills of the PGF than you have posted. I have better stills then the one you posted. Yet I understand the rational that if one is taking a certain stand on an issue that it is unlikely that they will produce the best quality evidence that may run contrary.

That said with regards to the PGF backstory we now live in an age where just about any side of a position on an issue can be presented and there will be a mass of information supporting that side. The PGF backstory has not one single shred of hard evidence to back up either side. At the end of the day its all heresay. This is why the film and not the backstory is the only thing open to scrutinity. Personally I think the entire cast of characters were at that point in their lives little more than beer swilling yahoos.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Drewbot wrote:

Sweaty, as I had APEMAN clarify, the OKAPI hasn't been photographed in 50 years IN VIRUNGA NATIONAL PARK. The OKAPI isn't on the endangered species list, in fact there are captive breeding programs in the DRCongo.

Well, that's different.
This is the headline that I saw earlier today....

"Mythical 'African unicorn' caught on camera in the wild for the first time"


The article didn't mention anything about the animal already being in captivity.

Thanks for the info, Drew!

 

[captain koolaid]

"British team capture first pictures of Africa's 'unicorn'"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080910/sc_afp/britaindrcongoanimalwildlife





Contrary to what William Parcher, and company, have declared.....the "time limit" isn't up on capturing images of large, so-called 'mythical' animals for the first time.

Like I said before......the Earth is far, far larger than some people's abilities to comprehend it are.

What an incredible flight of fancy. Okapi = Giraffidae. Not Equidae. An Okapi is a Unicorn, like an Elk is a Bigfoot.

 

[captain koolaid]

Kitakaze:

I have always admired Chris and his many fine accomplishments in film makeup.

Chris Walas is outstanding in his field. He is also a fine Director- I love "The Fly 2".

focus on judging the film

Bill

Conveniently, that is not possible. Without it, it's just another copy of a low budget monster movie.