Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[Ravenwood]

For some reason, I am reminded the time someone posted a picture of his recreation of the PGF creature suit on the Bigfoot Forums and was torn to shreds about how fake & amateurish it was, and how you could tell it was a suit & then someone else pointed out that it was the creature from the PGF film photoshopped into a modern street photograph and then the thread got wiped after much frothing & screaming...

 

[clayflingythingy]

Cbengalensis,

Bill "Patty is a real BF" Munns used to post @ JREF. When he started posting about his upcoming review of the PGF it was obvious he was going to declare Patty a real BF.

He has an bias to Patty being a real creature.

As Tube has pointed out, it will be hard for him to walk away from that conclusion. He gets brown nosed over @ BFF as the bleevers reference Bill on an regular basis.

KK aparently holds out hope he will be objective and declare the suit as "the suit" when he sees it. Methinks KK is indulging in wishful thinking.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you are looking for impartial regarding bigfoot, Munns would clearly be off the table.

I'd rather ask Meldrum to be the judge...

Meldrum was able to admit that the walk had been accurately reproduced by a guy in a bigfoot suit.

 

[Drewbot]

If Bill were to go and see the suit, and declare it to be the suit in the film, would Dr. Meldrum have to give the grant monies back?

 

[LTC8K6]

If Bill were to go and see the suit, and declare it to be the suit in the film, would Dr. Meldrum have to give the grant monies back?

Of course not.

Just because Patty was fake...

 

[demonunderyourbed]

Cbengalensis,


KK aparently holds out hope he will be objective and declare the suit as "the suit" when he sees it. Methinks KK is indulging in wishful thinking.

as i posted,depends"who" the mysterious owner of the suit is. i think thats KK ace up the sleeve.

 

[William Parcher]

I wouldn't trust anyone who is truly impartial to the PGF.

Point at the PGF subject and ask "what is that?" If the reply is "I have no opinion", then I become highly skeptical of that person's honesty and intellectual capacity. I mean look, you can't even say "Well it's probably a guy in a suit but I don't know that for a fact"? No, you can't say that because the first bit about "probably is" is a confession that you are not impartial. The second bit about "not knowing for a fact" doesn't save you from your bias. See how ridiculous that is?

True impartiality concerning Patty is a contrived and artificial condition.

 

[LTC8K6]

One big question is...would Roger have gotten rid of the suit?

He could probably get away with saying the suit was modeled after Patty.

That's what will be said today if the suit shows up, and it will be accepted by the bigfoot community.

Roger wanted to make bigfoot movies, so he'd need a suit, and he wouldn't want to pay to make another one.

Roger could also alter it a little so it didn't look exactly like Patty if he wanted to use it again. He could remove the boobs, for example.

I tend to think Roger would have kept the suit. His bigfoot movie brought him a lot of money.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

Is there even any value in bringing a special effects expert, Bill Munns or otherwise, to inspect the suit? Such an expert could offer insight into the techniques used to build that particular suit, but we know next to nothing about the suit used in the film so that wouldn't provide any kind of confirmation. You don't need an expert to look at it an confirm, "Yes, this is a Bigfoot suit." (Although if it were a dead-on match for Bob Heironimus' description, that would be very telling.)

Here are some things they might investigate:

The age of the suit - This is clearly a biggie. Does the suit show evidence of being 40+ years old? Were the materials used available at the time? A special effects expert could offer insight into the materials widely used in the trade at the time, but that's irrelevant in the context of a one-off suit where the builder is unknown. In fact, Munns has seemed somewhat closed minded at times about this. I can picture him examining the suit and saying, "This is bear fur. Effects guys in the 60s used horse fur. No match." Well, clearly bear furs existed in the 1960's. Maybe most suits used horse, but that doesn't rule out bear.

Environmental evidence - There may be trace materials on the suit such as pollen that would indicate that it had been in the area of the PGF. A special effects expert would be of no help here.

Visual characteristics - This would be the bulk of the analysis, I would think. Does the suit match what we see in the film? Bill Munns has done a lot of visual analysis of the film, but so have many others. It would probably be best to bring in an impartial expert anyway - someone who has never analyzed the film before and has not prior opinions or conclusions. That rules out all of us, of course.

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

One big question is...would Roger have gotten rid of the suit?
...
I tend to think Roger would have kept the suit. His bigfoot movie brought him a lot of money.

Agreed. There was nobody breathing down his neck trying to expose him as a hoax. A junkie doesn't flush his stash until the police are at the door.

 

[DennyT]

Case study: the alderfeet
By simple inspection, most of the pre Patterson prints were made by Ray Wallace's alderfeet. The bleevers response? Wallace's alderfeet were made in imitation of bigfoot tracks.

costume: looks exactly like Patty. even has Bob H.'s DNA still floating around in it. Materials from the 60's. Glass eye. The bleevers response: made by persons unknown in imitation of Patty. This is the suit Bob H had in his trunk. Carried it around, getting drunk and scaring people.

You read it here first.

This isn't to say that the media and the public at large won't believe that the film has at long last been debunked. They will. But the hard core including Bill Munns? Jeff Meldrum? not so much.

 

[Cbengalensis]

I wouldn't trust anyone who is truly impartial to the PGF.

Point at the PGF subject and ask "what is that?" If the reply is "I have no opinion", then I become highly skeptical of that person's honesty and intellectual capacity. I mean look, you can't even say "Well it's probably a guy in a suit but I don't know that for a fact"? No, you can't say that because the first bit about "probably is" is a confession that you are not impartial. The second bit about "not knowing for a fact" doesn't save you from your bias. See how ridiculous that is?

True impartiality concerning Patty is a contrived and artificial condition.

Mr. Parcher:

Your last line is quite intriguing, at least to me personally.

It would appear you are arguing that true impartiality is not an option, and that would leave anyone as being partial to some idea, expectation, or conclusion. Is there any set of conditions that would satisfy you, or would you consider this proposed inspection to be a hopeless endeavor, regardless of how it might be carried out?

CB

 

[Deacondark]

For some reason, I am reminded the time someone posted a picture of his recreation of the PGF creature suit on the Bigfoot Forums and was torn to shreds about how fake & amateurish it was, and how you could tell it was a suit & then someone else pointed out that it was the creature from the PGF film photoshopped into a modern street photograph and then the thread got wiped after much frothing & screaming...

Ahhh yes. The old "D-Foot" fiasco. He caused quite a stir. THey said his suit was a poor imitation, would fool no-one, etc. etc. He was actually building a suit too, wasn't he? Didn't he stop posting before actually showing his suit to the world? I'd love to see it.

 

[Drewbot]

Mr. Parcher:

Your last line is quite intriguing, at least to me personally.

It would appear you are arguing that true impartiality is not an option, and that would leave anyone as being partial to some idea, expectation, or conclusion. Is there any set of conditions that would satisfy you, or would you consider this proposed inspection to be a hopeless endeavor, regardless of how it might be carried out?

CB

The idea that the PGF represents a GIANT unclassified hairy, bipedal, apeman walking along that sandbar with those floppy slippers and goofy costume tells, is silly.

Would you have the same comments if someone said: "True impartiality concerning Unicorns is a contrived and artificial condition."?

 

[Drewbot]

Ahhh yes. The old "D-Foot" fiasco. He caused quite a stir. THey said his suit was a poor imitation, would fool no-one, etc. etc. He was actually building a suit too, wasn't he? Didn't he stop posting before actually showing his suit to the world? I'd love to see it.

Dfoot wanted to show the Bigfooters his suit. I did tell him in no uncertain terms that it was a lose-lose for him. If he nailed the suit, they would say it is not nearly as good as the PGF, and if he blew it on the suit, they would say 'See it can't be replicated, even by a great hollywood FX artist', I like to think that my input influenced him into not revealing the suit.

 

[Deacondark]

Dfoot wanted to show the Bigfooters his suit. I did tell him in no uncertain terms that it was a lose-lose for him. If he nailed the suit, they would say it is not nearly as good as the PGF, and if he blew it on the suit, they would say 'See it can't be replicated, even by a great hollywood FX artist', I like to think that my input influenced him into not revealing the suit.

It speaks volumes to the mindset of believers that, when shown pictures of Patty herself, they claim that it's a poor copy. I agree, D-Foot was in a lose lose situation.

 

[Tricky]

A number of posts have been moved to AAH for being off topic. Most of those posts would be fine if posted in the moderated Bigfoot thread, but not here. This thread has a very specific topic, and you may not use it as a place to go to avoid the moderated thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[OntarioSquatch]

It speaks volumes to the mindset of believers that, when shown pictures of Patty herself, they claim that it's a poor copy. I agree, D-Foot was in a lose lose situation.

Most pictures of Patty floating around on the internet are in pretty poor quality. The actual Bluff Creek site doesn't look like it's snowing.

 

[DennyT]

The resolution of the best copies of the Patterson movie is so low at that distance as to obscure features smaller than a half inch in size. I'd call that pretty poor quality for the purposes of identification. Kind of a Rorschach test.

 

[Drewbot]

Bill thinks none of the criticisms skeptics have provided (free of charge I might add) are legitimate criticisms. Even the lens criticism, the gorilla head model criticism, and the software choice criticism.