Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[Cbengalensis]

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.

In your opinion noted above, where you remark about pretty poor quality for identification, is that poor quality for identification of the Patterson movie's biped being a suit or costume, or poor quality for identifying it as something real, or both?

It would seem if the image quality is poor, either a judgment of it being real or fake is undermined by that poor image quality?

CB

 

[Drewbot]

The seams and slippers are well within the resolution of the film.

 

[Cbengalensis]

The seams and slippers are well within the resolution of the film.

I recall seeing some image from this movie where the foot had toes. Slippers don't have toes, do they?

CB

 

[Drewbot]

I recall seeing some image from this movie where the foot had toes. Slippers don't have toes, do they?

CB

That was from a Cibachrome image.

 

[GT/CS]

CB,
Be careful, your 'footer is showing.

 

[Cbengalensis]

CB,
Be careful, your 'footer is showing.

I'm trying to see both sides equally as options to consider.

I'm also asking questions when someone remarks about something I think is illogical or perhaps mis-stated.

Isn't that good critical thinking?

CB


added afterthought:

It appears to me that no definitive solution to this Patterson movie and the controversies around it has been achieved. After more than 40 years, it seems there should be a solution. I wonder why there isn’t one. It’s the lack of solution which intrigues me.

One member in another thread said that the evidence is non-existent, but you need evidence as much to prove a hoax as prove an event is real or truthful. So he seems to be arguing there’s no evidence to prove either. I found that curious.

If there’s evidence to prove a hoax, one must still falsify the alternative, which requires evidence, and if there’s no evidence to falsify the alternative, there’s no proof of hoax.

Obviously a lot of you here have been arguing this for a long time and thus are more familiar with the details and as well familiar with the various specific issues or claims. It’s like a sort of shorthand has evolved, and obviously I don’t know that shorthand form of expression.

But for the most part, I’m simply dealing with elemental questions and ideas.

I’ve heard the term “footer” used but frankly don’t have any clear idea of what criteria defines a person as such.

Can you define the term, in some concise form, and then show how any of my postings meet that definition?

 

[rockinkt]

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.

Don't forget Munns stating he could unerringly tell if an original film had been spliced anywhere by studying a copy. The fact that no-one else in the world has been able to state this is of no concern to him.
He was called on it and then went into a rambling discourse about how Patterson would never need or want to do such a thing anyway. Of course - by inference - this means he could also read the minds of the dead.
He still has the rubes convinced that he alone has this magical power to see what no real film expert can see.

Munns has also stated that a mime in a costume would need a support team and wouldn't be able to survive without one due to heat prostration from being in the suit. Another shameless exaggeration/lie.

Munns is a scamming opportunist who has not only jumped the Bigfoot gravy train - he has maneuvered himself into the engineer's chair.
I give him credit for his ability to see an opportunity and then skillfully exploiting it to his advantage. He certainly is a very intelligent man.

 

[rockinkt]

I'm trying to see both sides equally as options to consider.

I'm also asking questions when someone remarks about something I think is illogical or perhaps mis-stated.

Isn't that good critical thinking?

CB


added afterthought:

It appears to me that no definitive solution to this Patterson movie and the controversies around it has been achieved. After more than 40 years, it seems there should be a solution. I wonder why there isn’t one. It’s the lack of solution which intrigues me.

One member in another thread said that the evidence is non-existent, but you need evidence as much to prove a hoax as prove an event is real or truthful. So he seems to be arguing there’s no evidence to prove either. I found that curious.

If there’s evidence to prove a hoax, one must still falsify the alternative, which requires evidence, and if there’s no evidence to falsify the alternative, there’s no proof of hoax.

Obviously a lot of you here have been arguing this for a long time and thus are more familiar with the details and as well familiar with the various specific issues or claims. It’s like a sort of shorthand has evolved, and obviously I don’t know that shorthand form of expression.

But for the most part, I’m simply dealing with elemental questions and ideas.

I’ve heard the term “footer” used but frankly don’t have any clear idea of what criteria defines a person as such.

Can you define the term, in some concise form, and then show how any of my postings meet that definition?

The preponderance of evidence shows the film to be a hoax.
If you are too lazy to research this for yourself - I'm certainly not going to do it for you.
Here's a hint: Look at the timeline and stories around the development of the original film. That alone is enough to prove the fact that what Patterson and Gimlin were selling the world was a complete fabrication.

 

[demonunderyourbed]

Munns is a scamming opportunist who has not only jumped the Bigfoot gravy train - he has maneuvered himself into the engineer's chair.
I give him credit for his ability to see an opportunity and then skillfully exploiting it to his advantage. He certainly is a very intelligent man.

+1 100% agree.

 

[River]

I'm trying to see both sides equally as options to consider.

I'm also asking questions when someone remarks about something I think is illogical or perhaps mis-stated.

Isn't that good critical thinking?

CB


added afterthought:

It appears to me that no definitive solution to this Patterson movie and the controversies around it has been achieved. After more than 40 years, it seems there should be a solution. I wonder why there isn’t one. It’s the lack of solution which intrigues me.

One member in another thread said that the evidence is non-existent, but you need evidence as much to prove a hoax as prove an event is real or truthful. So he seems to be arguing there’s no evidence to prove either. I found that curious.

If there’s evidence to prove a hoax, one must still falsify the alternative, which requires evidence, and if there’s no evidence to falsify the alternative, there’s no proof of hoax.

Obviously a lot of you here have been arguing this for a long time and thus are more familiar with the details and as well familiar with the various specific issues or claims. It’s like a sort of shorthand has evolved, and obviously I don’t know that shorthand form of expression.

But for the most part, I’m simply dealing with elemental questions and ideas.

I’ve heard the term “footer” used but frankly don’t have any clear idea of what criteria defines a person as such.

Can you define the term, in some concise form, and then show how any of my postings meet that definition?

That's incorrect sir.. (my bolding) It not only has been achieved, the actor in the suit has been interviewed many times. The making of bigfoot (book by Greg Long) might be a good resource for you to check out.

This is an article I wrote proving the footprints claimed to be from the film subject were hoaxed.

http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Cbengalensis:

I’ve heard the term “footer” used but frankly don’t have any clear idea of what criteria defines a person as such.

Can you define the term, in some concise form, and then show how any of my postings meet that definition?

Footer = Someone who believes there is or ever was, an undocumented North American primate.

You should be able to decide if you meet the definition or not.

 

[Cbengalensis]

rockinkt
where you remark,
“The preponderance of evidence shows the film to be a hoax.”

“preponderence” as I understand the word, means majority or more for than in opposition, but that means there is some evidence in opposition to the idea of a hoax would exist.

If there were none, it would be appropriate to say “ the entirety of evidence shows the film to be a hoax”.

So it would seem you are acknowledging these is some evidence that does not show the film is a hoax, based on your choice of words.

also, I do not recall asking you to do any research for me, unless my asking a question makes a person lazy.

River
where you said:

“the actor in the suit has been interviewed many times.”

From what I read in this forum, the actor (whom I presume you mean Mr. Heironimous) does not have a unanimous endorsement even from people in this forum. So I would not consider his claim conclusive in the larger sense either.



Skeptical Greg
Thank you for providing a definition of a “footer"

I do not meet you definition of a “footer”

CB

 

[River]

rockinkt
where you remark,
“The preponderance of evidence shows the film to be a hoax.”

“preponderence” as I understand the word, means majority or more for than in opposition, but that means there is some evidence in opposition to the idea of a hoax would exist.

If there were none, it would be appropriate to say “ the entirety of evidence shows the film to be a hoax”.

So it would seem you are acknowledging these is some evidence that does not show the film is a hoax, based on your choice of words.

also, I do not recall asking you to do any research for me, unless my asking a question makes a person lazy.

River
where you said:

“the actor in the suit has been interviewed many times.”

From what I read in this forum, the actor (whom I presume you mean Mr. Heironimous) does not have a unanimous endorsement even from people in this forum. So I would not consider his claim conclusive in the larger sense either.



Skeptical Greg
Thank you for providing a definition of a “footer"

I do not meet you definition of a “footer”

CB

Who else has been suggested as being the actor in the suit? (or claimed to have been) A more accurate statement might be, some of the skeptics posting here don't care who it was in the suit. Why would the actor require a unanimous decision to be considered? Why won't Gimlin have an interview with Heironimus present? (or by a skeptical interviewer?)

 

[GT/CS]

And who are we to decide for the known world who was in the suit.

Someone posts like there is an Us vs. Them battle going and JFEF is the 'them'.

 

[Cbengalensis]

River:

In one post, replying to my remark that “It appears to me that no definitive solution to this Patterson movie and the controversies around it has been achieved.”

You say I am incorrect and “It not only has been achieved, the actor in the suit has been interviewed many times. “

Now, a few posts later, you remark “Why would the actor require a unanimous decision to be considered? “

“Achieved” is a conclusion, an accomplishment with finality. “Considered” is not achieved, merely in active contention for the achievement.

I would agree Mr. Heironimous can be considered, and certainly he is.

But I still don’t see a solution, so for the moment, it would appear my original remark above still stands as a reasonable appraisal of the situation.

CB

 

[RayG]

That's incorrect sir.. (my bolding) It not only has been achieved, the actor in the suit has been interviewed many times. The making of bigfoot (book by Greg Long) might be a good resource for you to check out.

The actor who claims to have been in the suit you mean? He was never interviewed whilst wearing the suit. It's my understanding that:

1. No Patty suit has ever been produced.
2. No Patty has ever been produced.

As far as I'm concerned that renders any definitive pronouncement about Patty quite close to impossible.

RayG

 

[River]

River:

In one post, replying to my remark that “It appears to me that no definitive solution to this Patterson movie and the controversies around it has been achieved.”

You say I am incorrect and “It not only has been achieved, the actor in the suit has been interviewed many times. “

Now, a few posts later, you remark “Why would the actor require a unanimous decision to be considered? “

“Achieved” is a conclusion, an accomplishment with finality. “Considered” is not achieved, merely in active contention for the achievement.

I would agree Mr. Heironimous can be considered, and certainly he is.

But I still don’t see a solution, so for the moment, it would appear my original remark above still stands as a reasonable appraisal of the situation.

CB

I suppose many proponents would ignore any confession by the other principles in the film as well. I would also ask you how could the footprints and casts be of fake impressions, and the creature on film be real? The films were claimed to represent the events of that day. Or do you prefer to ignore the proof of the footprints being faked also?

 

[River]

The actor who claims to have been in the suit you mean? He was never interviewed whilst wearing the suit. It's my understanding that:

1. No Patty suit has ever been produced.
2. No Patty has ever been produced.

As far as I'm concerned that renders any definitive pronouncement about Patty quite close to impossible.

RayG

I did not mean literally whilst wearing the suit. Frankly, I tire of the special pleading required to make it anything other than a MIAS. Would Gimlin confessing to Heironimus being in the suit convince you? If so, why would one hoaxers word be worth more than the other?

At this point, we can agree to disagree. I'm satisfied that it was Heironimus and time perhaps will expose more of this story to the public. If you want to say "prove it", I would ask you how that could be done more so than it already has? Are we looking for film of Heironimus getting in the suit? What would it take for you?

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

It appears to me that no definitive solution to this Patterson movie and the controversies around it has been achieved.

What would you consider a definitive solution? Everyone's standards are different. And you'll find plenty of people on both sides who feel that their standards have been met. They can't all be right, of course...

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

The actor who claims to have been in the suit you mean? He was never interviewed whilst wearing the suit. It's my understanding that:

1. No Patty suit has ever been produced.
2. No Patty has ever been produced.

As far as I'm concerned that renders any definitive pronouncement about Patty quite close to impossible.

Or should it be:

1. Bigfoot suits have been produced.
2. No actual Bigfoot has been produced.

Until the animal has been definitively proven to exist, the "real" and "hoax" positions don't start on equal footing. "It's a large unidentified primate" is clearly the more extraordinary claim. That doesn't mean it's wrong per se; it just has a steeper hill to climb.

Why do people clamor to produce a suit anyway? Do we have a suit specimen for any Bigfoot film ever? That includes the hordes of amateur Bigfoot productions on YouTube. We should make it a requirement for everyone who demands a Patty suit that must they also accept as valid every Bigfoot video on YouTube for which they cannot produce a suit.