Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[kitakaze]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15294

Im sorry, but if your wanting to prove bh is in the suit, your doing it the hardway. The first 2 pictures side by side vary greatly

Yes they do vary greatly. One shows a man in street clothing and the other shows most likely a man in a Bigfoot costume. In what way do they vary greatly regarding height and proportions? And please demonstrate the difference.

 

[kitakaze]

You either are another Makaya or even worse. Your meaningless drivel and circular arguments ( while always avoiding answering direct uestions with direct answers) is your way of just stirring the pot with absolutely nothing of any legitimate value to contribute.

Then there are the bad points

Sweaty and little mak's debate tactics are very similar. We are talking about a man in his fifties and an 18 yr old high school boy. I would never call Sweaty a troll. Many of his arguments and tactics are incredibly stupid and often quite dishonest but they are genuinely his thoughts. He doesn't post his thoughts for the sole purpose of messing with people. He does however rely very much on presenting arguments he know to be flawed and debunked after some period of time after the last pummeling. He rarely modifies these arguments but rather cycles through them.

Both he and little mak are prone to evasion and intellectual dishonesty to try and forward their poor arguments. Both will flee when pursued with their own idiotic statements.

I think I might pay actual money to watch Sweaty and little mak debate the MDF. I would sit on the edge of my seat and look on in utter fascination.

 

[Crowlogic]

The sculptures (not suits) are in clay, likely over a plaster support. Both available in '67. Please expand on you objections.

You posted those sculptures as "suits under construction". Well what are they static sculpture or primate suits under construction that will later be either worn by a human mime or otherwise powered to move? If you want to talk about sclupture we can go back to the beginning of civilization. However that says nothing of incorperating scuplted forms into fur covered primate suits to be worn by human beings in motion. The examples of primate suites of the PGF period are well known and none of them exibit muscle defination of the type we see in those later forms you've posted.

Bill Munns has made many exquisite static primate models yet Bill will be the first one to tell you that there is a huge difference between design for movement and design for static display. Not surprisingly static display is the far easier of the two types.

That said I suggest you understand and recgonize a static sculpture under construction before you throw one out here as a suit under construction. Also if those are scluptures for stop motion animation they don't count in a discussion of the PGF since the PGF is a true motion film.

Lastly if you believe that there are examples of pre 1968 fur covered primate suits that show the kind of muscle defination in your post lets see them. I'm entirely confident that you won't find any. If there were there they would have shown up here by now.

 

[kitakaze]

How about proving, or demonstrating, a POSITIVE, Aepervius?.....like showing that Patty POSITIVELY could be replicated with a massively-padded suit?

What's the problem??

There's word going around that Patty is a cheap, off-the-shelf, crappy suit......yet nobody seems to have a clue as to how to replicate even ONE of the ambiguous aspects of her "cheap suit"....such as 'moving calf muscles', 'moving toes', moving thigh muscles', and 'a bulge that appears on the thigh, and then a second later doesn't re-appear while the thigh is rippling in the very same area'.

Maybe if you tried thinking POSITIVELY, Aepervius, you could actually replicate one of those movements........just stuff a little padding inside of your pant-leg, and show us how it...

See, this is case in point and how I can easily set about yet another of the countless rounds where I cause Sweaty to cornerhuddle. There are two simple elements:

1) Claim no aspect of the PGF has been replicated. Simply respond with Gorn '66:



2) Another is stating things as fact that have in no way been established.

- Moving calf muscles? Show Patty McLumpy's softballs and Gorn '66.

- Moving toes? Show both feet, ask to rule out motion blur, and explain why the apparent moving toes are longer than Patty's toes when seen. Also ask what purpose a foot breaking upward joint movement could possibly have.

- Moving thigh muscles? Ask about Patty's crazy horizontal subducting detail on thigh that he admits is more consistent with a suit.

Sit back, watch Sweaty flee.

 

[kitakaze]

Again....if you see something specifically wrong with what I've posted, then feel free to show exactly where the error is.

So that he may evade and ignore it as illustrated by the Bigfoot science pummel post #711.

Run, Sweaty. Run.

 

[kitakaze]

On a more serious note...I just came across this...courtesy of Lu, over on the Mid-America Board, concerning Patty's exceptionally long arms...

W: Describe it to me, Bob.

Bob: It was a large hairy creature with arms that hang down beside its, you know, far down on its sides, below its knees, and it was quite ..

W: Do you agree with that?

Roger: No, I think Bob's a little excited here, I don't believe they were below the knees, they were above the knees.

W: But they were well down on the sides, weren't they?

Bob: Way down, right.

W: And I could see that on the film tonight, they were well down on the sides.

Here's the link to the full interview transcript....the interview was given in November 1967...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm


The interesting thing about Roger and Bob saying that Patty had extremely long arms is....why would they have described them that way, if Patty's arms were actually the SAME length as Bob Heironimus' arms??

Even the interviewer says that Patty's arms are exceptionally long.

Critical thinking in critical condition. Patterson wants to create the image of long arms and has Bob Heironimus walk hunched over to emphasize this. Gimlin knows Patterson is try to push this image and overstates himself. Patterson, knowing what is visible on camera corrects him. It means nothing if the interviewer accepts the suggestion or illusion.

The fact of the matter is....to most everyone....Patty's arms do look longer in proportion to the body than an average human's arms do.

But it's not necessarily due to an extreme length from the fingertips to the shoulders, but rather, it may be they appear extra-long due to an unusually short distance from the fingertips to the feet......or, a combination of the two, together.

I've been repeatedly trying to get you to address this but have gotten nothing but evasion and ignoring. Here again I will repost post #594 for people to further witness your intellectual dishonesty:

I love that post. It is an absolutely perfect example of Bigfoot science. All that goofy crayon work. Here are some simple questions that clearly outline the idiocy of that piece of Bigfoot science:

1) When confidently pronouncing that "Patty's arms are clearly longer than a human's arms, proportionally speaking," what was your sample base? IOW, how many humans did you compare to?

2) Patty is hunched over, genius. What's the length from the tip of the right hand to the left foot and more importantly, what the heck does it matter?

Please note:

Post #585 kicks post #589 in the hole of no return.

Don't forget that you have been completely unable to refute Astrophotographer's detailed analysis that shows Patty's arms are not in any way at all inhumanly long.

You crash and burn again. Once again I obliterate your crap arguments and make you cornerhuddle. Try and debate me on this, Sweaty. I dare you. Don't keep running.

 

[kitakaze]

Nice sculpture work but bear in mind that any discussion of the PGF has to be predicated by the fact that it was made in 1967. Those suits while seemingly of an advanced design are like comparing the V2 with the Saturn V or a P-40 with an F-16.

You know, log. I really think you ought to be careful about heavy lifting. Goal posts are quite heavy after all.

Once again, I Gorn you:



- Pre-PGF

- Better defined muscles and moving

- Easy to attach hair for Bigfoot version.

Please don't talk to me about how much better Patty is without showing specific muscle movements. One movement I can see does what no muscle should.

 

[kitakaze]

Not at all. Bob has short stubby arms, while patty has long monkey arms

You're supposed to close you eyes and click your heels when you do that. Or provide evidence. Either way, substantiation, not repetition.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It's just too bad that Patty never straightens up...all this folderol about long arms would never have gotten started. Damn you Patterson! Too clever by half..

Actually there are a couple where she pretty much does ( straighten up ). I think one of them was named LTCxx by WP a while back ..

 

[makaya325]

You're supposed to close you eyes and click your heels when you do that. Or provide evidence. Either way, substantiation, not repetition.

The photo of bob in his jacket and the skeleton of patty vary greatly. Patty's arms are nearly as long as HER legs. Bobs arms are short and stubby

 

[kitakaze]

The photo of bob in his jacket and the skeleton of patty vary greatly. Patty's arms are nearly as long as HER legs. Bobs arms are short and stubby

Do you have trouble comprehending plain English? I indicated that you should demonstrate what you are talking about, not repeat yourself. My arms are quite long, I'm not Bigfoot. Show it and stop yapping.

 

[LTC8K6]

Actually there are a couple where she pretty much does ( straighten up ).

Right you are. I was thinking of blown up frames and clips which are commonly used to analyze Patty.

Where are the comparisons of McLarin or BobH to the frames where Patty is upright? Particularly those frames where Patty's arms are held rigidly out from her sides like an A frame?

 

[LTC8K6]

I just came across this...courtesy of Lu, over on the Mid-America Board, concerning Patty's exceptionally long arms...

That's been posted here many, many, times...discussed many times too.

 

[JohnWS]

You posted those sculptures as "suits under construction". Well what are they static sculpture or primate suits under construction that will later be either worn by a human mime or otherwise powered to move? If you want to talk about sclupture we can go back to the beginning of civilization.

The reason they were posted is to show a process sculpting in clay to prepare forms for moulding for later incorporation in a fur-suit (you referred to the sculptures as suits, that's what I was correcting by saying 'not suits') . They are one of the best examples of muscular definition in the design stage that I have to hand. They are to illustrate Sweaty's beloved 'body contour' and one way it can be achieved. As you say above, the art of sculpture is virtually timeless. Yet over eager proponents of the PGF seem to suffer a mental block when it is suggested that the process could be used to prepare a subject similar to the PGF in 1967. The Gorn (Thanks KK) is a good example of a form derived from a sculpture in the 60's. Yet you can't imagine it would be possible to incorporate it into a fur suit?

Bill Munns has made many exquisite static primate models yet Bill will be the first one to tell you that there is a huge difference between design for movement and design for static display. Not surprisingly static display is the far easier of the two types.

Precisely the reason I edited out "In your own words not Bill Munns' please" from my previous post.

That said I suggest you understand and recgonize a static sculpture under construction before you throw one out here as a suit under construction. Also if those are scluptures for stop motion animation they don't count in a discussion of the PGF since the PGF is a true motion film.

I don't understand the above. Are you suggesting the figures I posted are for stop motion or static display? The artist must be very small indeed if he's preparing a stop motion figure. Stop motion, suit, static display? You are willing to argue, yet you don't seem to understand what you are looking at or the processes involved.

While we are on that subject, posted again:

A 1950's stop motion puppet 'sans' it's coat of extremely short custom made rubberised fur. Stop motion animators in the 50's could produce superbly muscled figures, covered in flexible custom made short hair pre PGF. But they 'don't count'. Convenient that.

Lastly if you believe that there are examples of pre 1968 fur covered primate suits that show the kind of muscle defination in your post lets see them. I'm entirely confident that you won't find any. If there were there they would have shown up here by now.

Shown 'in my post' - you sneaked that one in to up the anti. Once again, only to no doubt have the goalposts moved, we come to Charles Gemora.

Suiting up. Padding on and eyes made up, Charles Gemora prepares to don one of his amazing gorilla suits.

And another interesting page originally posted by Correa Neto from memory. Edit - this to show the sophistication of a 1940's ape suit - note articulated hand extensions, then say 'NASI report'.

So yes - they have shown up by now.

 

[Drewbot]

JohnWS-
Awesome pwnage. Next thing you know, they'll be telling us how terrible gorilla suit construction was pre 1967. Heck, some of them told Vern Langdon to his face, that his shoddy work didn't compare with Patty.

 

[JohnWS]

Thanks Drew. The trouble is as soon as someone comes along who has vast experience - but a negative view of the PGF, they are given such an unpleasant ride they don't hang around too long.

I just found a picture (1936) of some nicely contoured gorilla arms. HERE.

I'll see if I can find the Lost in Space creature too - I've got that somewhere.

ETA The Lost in Space creature, showing arm musculature.

I think Wolftrax found this one to give credit.

 

[Crowlogic]

JohnWS. Correct stop motion does not count. The 1936 gorilla suit is most likely Charlie Gamora (SP) but supurb muscle defination in those arms? No not at my house. You mention the Gorn (yet it comes up again). Seeing that thing in motion fairly screams "guy in rubber suit". Much of the same can be said of the Lost in Space monster. Actually the LIS monster looks more than anything else baggy in the arms and its possible the mime is wearing arm extensions which if the creature was of this world whould raise eyebrows concerning the joint articulation points. However it gets a pss since they were after all lost in space. Maybe post some links with those things in motion.

 

[kitakaze]

JohnWS. Correct stop motion does not count. The 1936 gorilla suit is most likely Charlie Gamora (SP) but supurb muscle defination in those arms? No not at my house. You mention the Gorn (yet it comes up again). Seeing that thing in motion fairly screams "guy in rubber suit".

Ha! You mean like Patty screams "guy in a fur suit."

Maybe post some links with those things in motion.

Log, you are such a chronic goalpost shifter. Why don't you, instead of being a lazy footer sitting on your ass doling out log wisdom, try actually demonstrating these far superior muscle movements you speak of in the PGF? If it turns out to be the joke that was your piloerection claim, you can expect some well-deserved derision.

 

[JohnWS]

JohnWS. Correct stop motion does not count.

If you are trying to deny that certain types of artistry and processes were available pre 1967 - I guess it doesn't - sorry but that's all I see here. So muscle definition and custom made flexible furs 'don't count'.

Gemora's work and the other pictures prove that motion picture artists were aware of and, were applying exaggerated musculature to figures long before the PGF. But that doesn't count either.

The Gorn, as has been pointed out to you before, gives a classic hammy monster on the rampage performance. It's also shot in close-up. That's a lot of the reason it doesn't sell and you know it. Ridley Scott was savvy enough to know how to get a frightening performance out of a guy in a rubber suit in 'Alien' by bucking that very trend.

Maybe post some links with those things in motion.

I know why KK has those goalpost images now, not that I didn't expect this very request of course. It's so predictable.

 

[Hitch]

One thing I learned over the years of reading bigfoot threads here on this forum is you'll never convince the pro-Patty-as-a-real-creature crowd by showing them what suits are capable of. They see thing in the PGF that are completely impossible to recreate. The fact that they can't be recreated is not surprising, since they aren't there to begin with. But you'll never convince them if you can't meet those standards.

Some people choose to remain deluded and there's nothing you can do to help.